pakiztan, bangla, sri lanka should emulate european model

[Ayush]

yea, well when typing on cell phones, you are going to forgive my spelling when I can't even see my last sentence when typing the next.

Now that I am back and Google is once again at my disposal.

Pakistan has 500 thousand active, a further 500 thousand in reserve.
Sri lanka has 200 thousand while Bangladesh has 350 thousand active.

That is way too many men for the limited budget.

in comparison Pakistan at 5 billion has almost 5 times more active than British using 57 billion dollars.

I'm saying cut down on men while increase per soldier income, equipment and living conditions.

These three countries would be much better equipped and ready for action if the quality of soldiers increase.

Maybe move some of the troops to other departments as police or something like that and create an elite army specifically for war.

Would you not agree spending more per soldier in this day and age is better than simply having men?

so.its quality vs quantity eh??

the thing is most developing countries have excess population and limited budget,hence they go for quantity whereas the developed world goes for quality..
due to lack of funds,they rely more on man power..
i suggest that there should be a balance between the two...but with increasing income of the developing countries,i see this balance coming soon...

 

[Aka123]

People who fear India and knows that their country doesn't have any capability to match it in real world and suffer from severe inferiority complex, they are the ones who come in this online forum and vent their frustration by abusing India and Indians. This is the only place they can safely abuse India. The retards think that 'yes abused India a lot today and now I am a hero and a true patriot of my country'.Other than that I don't find any reason why people unnecessary bark here. Feel that countering an argument can be done in a much civilized way but those dumbos will not get sleep until and unless they utter some piece of $h*t. This reminds me of the proverb when a tiger passes dogs bark from behind. Anyways carry on guyz, it doesn't matter how much you abuse here, lets see how much you match our country in reality. Definitely some fools will come up with some crappy, fake, useless and out of context so called facts now.

 

[Sashan]

With USA around there is no way maxico etc. can become big power same with south asia.

There is no threat to sri lanka and BD from any one and sri lanka don't even have a neighbor other then India.

India is there to help its neighbors in the hour of need and India is also there if they need spanking for allowing anything against India.

FYI nobody pisses bricks, they shlt for sure. at the least learn to abuse properly.
Dont forget if we fart you are the fart and " if we pi$$ bricks" you are the pi$$.

- When I read both these posts all I could think about is 70's Show Kelso - "Burnnnn"

 

[ejaz007]

Please anyone correct the spelling of Pakistan in the thread heading.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

With USA around there is no way maxico etc. can become big power same with south asia.

There is no threat to sri lanka and BD from any one and sri lanka don't even have a neighbor other then India.

India is there to help its neighbors in the hour of need and India is also there if they need spanking for allowing anything against India.

All nations need some form of enemy...

No country other than India is perfect for this.

 

[Cyberian]

There are around 100,000 American troops permanently based in Europe in countries such as Germany, United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. If the Americans move out, Europeans will simply go back to fighting another hundred-year long war and probably also launch World War 3.

On top of that, modern day Europeans are incapable of fighting a war without heavy American help. While at the same time their economies are fast swirling down the toilet.

I don't think Asia needs to follow the European model considering the "Look East" policy in the 21st century has already benefited much of Asia so much.

 

[Jind_Sagar]

yea, well when typing on cell phones, you are going to forgive my spelling when I can't even see my last sentence when typing the next.

Now that I am back and Google is once again at my disposal.

Pakistan has 500 thousand active, a further 500 thousand in reserve.
Sri lanka has 200 thousand while Bangladesh has 350 thousand active.

That is way too many men for the limited budget.

in comparison Pakistan at 5 billion has almost 5 times more active than British using 57 billion dollars.

I'm saying cut down on men while increase per soldier income, equipment and living conditions.

These three countries would be much better equipped and ready for action if the quality of soldiers increase.

Maybe move some of the troops to other departments as police or something like that and create an elite army specifically for war.

Would you not agree spending more per soldier in this day and age is better than simply having men?

Pakistan also has more than double the population, and significant civilian areas along a very volatile border. It's largest cities are all within artillery range, we are not stupid.

There's a reason every South Asian country has a big military, and it's because nothing replaces good old manpower in protecting key assets. It's much cheaper, and more reliable to have men already there, than to have drones scan for border intrusions and send men there.

Also, all of those euro countries also have special forces that go into other places and train 'rebels' who fight for their interests; what if you were to include them, after all they fight 'under the banner'. All that's happening is just like in the times of old, empires hired mercenaries.

Aren't there more for hire operatives than US soldiers in Iraq (and were as well?).

Blackwater, changed its name btw.

No region is as populated, or as hostile towards itself as South Asia. It is the world's most militarized and there is no region in the world that can compare (like always )

so think before you speak lol.
--

Also in regards to elite army for war, you know that Indo-pak are nuclear armed right? Do you really want war??

---

What does spending more get you?

On the ground, ballistics are largely unchanged for almost 50 years now, and body armor is not a huge expense, many forgo it in the jungle environments so common to our land.

For other assets, such as aircraft, etc. yes quality is better and they are spending money.

-
I hope, being chinese and hopefully being good at math, you factored in that Pak Army soldiers are paid much less than 5 times what the british are paid, and so it is cheaper to employ that many men.

-

Also, it is a 'country's' army; that means that it must use, and inherits the infrastructure of the region. You can only have as good an army as you have schools, and farms as they say. Britain has a lot more food, and a better education system than South Asia, and is also highly socialized (socialistic).

It also has hundreds of years of South Asian and Black slave labor, to industrially revolutionize itself, and fund war through gold stolen from various empires like the ones of Tipu Sultan, and Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

-
All in all, I hope you realize effective COIN requires manpower, and that is primarily what these countries deal with: sepratists. You can't bug every house, and you need checkpoints at every village or people will simply run off and let everyone know what's going on.

If south asia is the world's most militarized, it's also probably the world's most volatile.

 

[Genesis]

Really? Nothing replaces men power? China is cutting back size left right and center. Men power is useless. If there is a war if the invading enemies has less men all the enemies need to do is attack one point and make sure at every key battle they Can field the larger force at any key moment.

As the defending you can't move all troops to one point, so having an effective mobile force would allow the initiative, or at least for the defense to engage on it's own terms.

Pretty much moltek's strategy and also Mao. They have smaller armies but highly mobile and effective.

During Korean war 6 Chinese armies can't even finish off a surrounded american force of much much smaller force. He numbers game didn't improve in Iraq.

Personal soldier's education level is important as this will increase effectiveness. This is where higher wage comes in.


As to the Europe can't fight without us, did you not read my post? Of course they can't, they are not built for that. However for what they are built for they are highly effective.

 

[Laughing-Buddha]

Lol Geographically, all these countries have India in between them.

Only way pakistan, bangla, sri lanka can form a allaince like european union is by including India in the union and ask it to play the part of big brother for peacefull union.
But this can never happen as it will create chaos and political instabilities in pakistan. So idea of forming such idea union goes to dustbin.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Lol Geographically, all these countries have India in between them.

Only way pakistan, bangla, sri lanka can form a allaince like european union is by including India in the union and ask it to play the part of big brother for peacefull union.
But this can never happen as it will create chaos and political instabilities in pakistan. So idea of forming such idea union goes to dustbin.

Big brother bs only works for small countries like bd,srilanka or bhutan not with Pakistan.

With USA around there is no way maxico etc. can become big power same with south asia.

There is no threat to sri lanka and BD from any one and sri lanka don't even have a neighbor other then India.

India is there to help its neighbors in the hour of need and India is also there if they need spanking for allowing anything against India.

Thts the reason SL helped PN ships to dock and refuel in war time..

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

yea, well when typing on cell phones, you are going to forgive my spelling when I can't even see my last sentence when typing the next.

Now that I am back and Google is once again at my disposal.

Pakistan has 500 thousand active, a further 500 thousand in reserve.
Sri lanka has 200 thousand while Bangladesh has 350 thousand active.

That is way too many men for the limited budget.

in comparison Pakistan at 5 billion has almost 5 times more active than British using 57 billion dollars.

I'm saying cut down on men while increase per soldier income, equipment and living conditions.

These three countries would be much better equipped and ready for action if the quality of soldiers increase.

Maybe move some of the troops to other departments as police or something like that and create an elite army specifically for war.

Would you not agree spending more per soldier in this day and age is better than simply having men?

Our defence budget is near around 8-9 billion$ adding 1-2 billion n CSF and other stuff.... and the pensions etc are not cut from it... also our soldiers compared to other regional countries are better geared...And are getting beter gear specially the ones fighting in FATA...

 

[Zabaniyah]

There are around 100,000 American troops permanently based in Europe in countries such as Germany, United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. If the Americans move out, Europeans will simply go back to fighting another hundred-year long war and probably also launch World War 3.

LOL...no

 

[UKBengali]

While it makes sense for an increasingly rich China to replace manpower with better equipment, unfortunately this is not an option for countries like BD, Pakistan or Sri Lanka that are still very poor, with the exception of Sri Lanka but that has a tiny population and hence small GDP.

Take the example of BD with around 250,000 active troops. Cutting this down to 100,000 would not make BD any more able to defend itself than at present. It will save maybe few hundred million dollars a year but with the expense of modern weaponry the army would not be substantially better equipped than it is now. Better to have the extra 150,000 troops who can at at least be armed with rifles and anti-tank weapons. In a terrain like BD, these extra troops could cause havoc to any invader.

With poor countries like in South Asia, quantity has a quality all of it's own.

 

[Laughing-Buddha]

Big brother bs only works for small countries like bd,srilanka or bhutan not with Pakistan.

Yeah I am fully aware of that so are the other PDF members.

I already said accepting India's significance and might in south asia (which is a reality) cannot go easy with pakistan. This can cause chaos and political instabilty in pakistan and common pakistanis.

You are demonstrating nothing different here.

 

[Jungibaaz]

yea, well when typing on cell phones, you are going to forgive my spelling when I can't even see my last sentence when typing the next.

Now that I am back and Google is once again at my disposal.

Pakistan has 500 thousand active, a further 500 thousand in reserve.
Sri lanka has 200 thousand while Bangladesh has 350 thousand active.

That is way too many men for the limited budget.

in comparison Pakistan at 5 billion has almost 5 times more active than British using 57 billion dollars.

I'm saying cut down on men while increase per soldier income, equipment and living conditions.

These three countries would be much better equipped and ready for action if the quality of soldiers increase.

Maybe move some of the troops to other departments as police or something like that and create an elite army specifically for war.

Would you not agree spending more per soldier in this day and age is better than simply having men?

Pakistan has seen many wars with a much larger neighbour, they already hold the advantage in terms of numbers and now in spending too.

Pakistan needs conventional strength, nuclear deterrent too.

The model you propose is good, however, Pakistan's budget is small, economy is moving at a snail's pace and already miliatry budget is bloated.

If we follow the above model we would either have to DRASTICALLY cut numbers which would make us vulnerable, or inflate the already bloated budget and divert what little funds we have for education, infrastructure and healthcare.

We simply cannot adopt NATO model.
Nor will it work in our region.

The current US strategy is to use highly specialised, well armed soldiers.
However, in reality their soldiers do not challenge the taliban in their strongholds, the US fights around it's large bases and relies on air power. That is because they have no intention of winning as such or sustaining casualties and they have no disputes along their own lands that would require many troops.

The story is different for Pakistan.

We are a defensive force with offensive roles too.
We are well prepared for a war. And our only bother right now is dealing with security at home and striving for self sufficiency with the help of our Chinese brothers and allies.

We don't need to go to war alongside Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
We should keep good strong ties with them, keep them as valuable allies.
But we have no intention of going to war.

I am really glad to see Chinese brothers concerned about our defence, you are our greatest allies for sure.