Logistical clearly but which side is pushing for this? Which side will it benefit more? The retd ACM himself pointed out this deal would be of little utility to the IAF, perhaps a little more to the IN but alas that is still of little utility.
India does not engage in the same kind of expeditionary military operations as the US and where it does it has had little issue sourcing the requisite supplies and logistics.
Either way why should India allow its soil to to be used for the foreign expeditionary military missions of another nation?
And? This is a one off example, India has berthing rights of its own in Oman and their own fleet of FRS so it can go it alone if necessary.
The crux of the matter is Indians are very very touchy on issues of sovenrirgtvy and whilst the LSA is, on the surface, just logistics sharing agreement it is just the tip of the iceberg. How else does the US leverage itself into its sovereignty breaching positions across the world? Bit by bit, subtle erosion. The LSA today and permeant US bases in the Indian mainland and down in the A&N islands tomorrow.
It is clear the LSA by nature favours the more expeditionary military and thus the US has far more to gain from this agreement than India.
It just isn't going to happen, the BJP opposed this when in opposition, if they proposed such a thing now there would be, justifiable, uproar from the now opposition as well as the Left parties. CISMOA wasn't signed and it has not really hurt India, LSA hasn't been signed and I haven't once heard an Indian official complain about not sourcing logistics abroad.
1. It is not about who benefits more, it is about do you benefit too. By your argument if Oman says come on down and use our ports, they should reconsider. Because surely you have bigger naval assets than them. Today it may be limited in benefit, but do you see that diminishing as India rises?
2. Again, what india does today; does not mean it is not going require tomorrow. You have a blue water navy aspiration or is that going away? Using your argument, India does not intend to attack any country, then why have all these military assets and missiles that have extended ranges way beyond what you need? It's like a hedge/ planning, right.
3. A. India has allowed bases that in past with the russians B. India offered and has allowed us use its bases during the Afghan campaign (I think it's public knowledge) C. You like Turkey a NATO partner that too or anyone else, have complete rights to refuse on a case by case basis .
So where is the beef? Most of this just natural patrolling of international waters.
4.
The crux of the matter is Indians are very very touchy on issues of sovenrirgtvy and whilst the LSA is, on the surface, just logistics sharing agreement it is just the tip of the iceberg. How else does the US leverage itself into its sovereignty breaching positions across the world? Bit by bit, subtle erosion. The LSA today and permeant US bases in the Indian mainland and down in the A&N islands tomorrow.
It is clear the LSA by nature favours the more expeditionary military and thus the US has far more to gain from this agreement than India.
This part is baffling and frankly absurd. It sounds like the typical conspiracists we read here and beneath what I expect from a poster like you.
"We breach sovereignty bit by bit"- with whom?
"The LSA today, permanent bases tomorrow"- Did you just pull that out from nowhere? Again, very conspiratorial without any evidence/ historical perspective to back it up
Look, you have the right to be against it because paranoia makes you believe so or in other's case they just hate the U.S. and I get that . I just wanted to clarify that none of the reasons you have given have any merit to it.
We are buying your defense equipment because you are selling it to us . We are paying for the goods - we are not getting it free . You need a market - we need goods .
and with US there can never be anything Free . Let me be little dramatic - US will extract pound of flesh for every penny loaned .
Everything else
@Abingdonboy has elaborated very well !
LOL I can picture you among those groups chanting " Death to USA" . But please sell me your military assets.
Btw, the logistical agreement is not free. Both parties pay for the services rendered. If we refuel 20 times, we pay you for the service.
Back to my point. So you are basing your opinion on this logistic agreement on emotional reaction not on evidence.
