Should Countries with Large Armed Forces look for War?

[Spectre]

What proportion ... won't discuss. Your contention as bold, reasons of why won't be discussed. But there is a logic for the same.

Waste and inefficiency can always be justified by the perpetrators. Since you have withheld reasoning, I dont have anything solid to offer here other than general chatter. .

 

[Hellfire]

Waste and inefficiency can always be justified by the perpetrators. Since you have withheld reasoning, I dont have anything solid to offer here other than general chatter. .

Fair enough. Just wanted to convey. Sequentially posting.

Thanks

 

[Spectre]

Incorrect. Iran wont allow. Tajikistan - Russia wont allow.

Do we know that? This merely your assumption, I have reasons to believe otherwise

Iran has no truck with Taliban. Yes they deal with them because currently Taliban has material leverage, offer to remove that leverage and you will gain but gratitude.

Russia - Again has no love lost with Taliban or for that matter any Jihadist. They do business because its inevitable.

That is why Pakistan has to be engaged. They are doing a great job in FATA et al. The moment you induct troops, it becomes the takfiri narrative of kafir versus the mussalman

I really take offense at this statement. This is institutional cowardice which is ingrained in India. So fearful that we are ready to continue banging our heads at the brick wall of Pakistan..

What have we got to loose? Pakistan will continue funding separatists and insurgencies in Kashmir irrespective of any our actions. Their whole institutional set up is focused towards hurting India - NOT SAVING PAKISTAN. We have historic and current trends to say this without hesitation.

So what do we do? We keep ourselves huddled in a corner - thinking any strategic expansion will lead to Jihadi recruitment? Aren't they already recruiting with abandon? Isn't what happening in Kashmir ample proof that we dont need more appeasement either of Pakistan or Hurriyet or Jihadis?

What diplomatic capital will we loose? Everyone in the other world except Pakistan will be relieved by expiry of Taliban.. Which country supports Taliban except for Pakistan? Officially even Pakistan doesn't and if it protests then all it will get is desrision and contempt.

I standby my statement - taking out Taliban forcefully has no downside except that we get ourselves rid of this passive appeasement policy and irrational fear of backlash even when doing the morally and strategically right thing.

 

[Hellfire]

with all due respect
the objectives of different countries have amused me as you stated
China, US ,Russia are no doubt want strategic expansion

An antithesis. How?

from current developments
India is no longer in deterrent category
you see India is in expansionism(strategic)
seychelles and multiple listening bases
well that is my take
not sure what you described about Pakistan
but Afghanistan surely is an example of Pakistan's asymmetric capabilities
about Kashmir it is debatable

India indeed is in an expansion phase. You have rightly phrased it, there are no two views about it. However, the expansion is on the back of soft power exclusively, not quite unlike China.

Pakistan's role in Afghanistan and Kashmir shows the capabilities of what I had contended to, unconventional ops under plausible deniability. But unlike the contention of 'no blow back' the price of the policy is being paid by the society of Pakistan itself. It was, but bound to happen.

dont know if you are trolling or actually stupid
Pakistan did what was in their best interest
Pakistan created Nuke on US aid???
right under the largest and most expensive espionage network
Israel recieves biggest Military aid
are they dependent on it???

The bold portions, the first is a sure invite for trolling the thread. Having interacted with you earlier, refrain from such posts, they only incite trouble and chaos.

The second, not directly. You were bankrolled by the Saudis too, remember?

if you are talking about Afghanistan
you should read about Ayni and Farkhor airbases in tajikistan

What of them?

Why Iran, when we can make use of bases in Afghanistan?

Come to think of it, I wonder if this was the whole reason for India signing the LEMO with the Americans! Indian military can now use US bases around the world, which includes the Bagram Air base if am not wrong. With a friendly government in Kabul, this shouldn't be a problem at all.

Has logic. But why induct forces en-masse? Covert Ops? How can you rule in or out the same already not taking place?

Other is timidity - institutional cowardice. @Joe Shearer hinted at it but later retracted his post.

As a nation we suffer from old wounds which have perhaps healed superficially but still ache when we try to run..

Correct in the political sense. Self created wounds. May at times be downright s figment of imagination.

Tagging @jbgt90 your comments.

Simple 1962.

That was our own creation. A matter of not matching expectations with the desired force levels.

now as per topic of the thread yes countries with large armed forces keep looking to make war look at the history of man kind

Strangely we see China avoiding it, wonder why?

That is your assumption - without any data points. I can assume Pigs will fly..thats plausible but not probable.

Aw. Nasty. Anyways he is right. The Russians played pretty politics while we were being based at Ayani. Open source the story.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/will-there-be-an-indian-air-base-in-tajikistan/

Well Sadly i am not the PM nor i am DM so such a will and guidance is not mattering to the ones who actually take a call.. Yes exercise cost versus actual deployment will show case such issues favouring later..

No. It won't! Why does everyone negate logistics ..?

A food for thought really.. We can provide 4 Mi helos.. if we can do that than why not a bit more than that...

Because replacements are not in pipeline?

I know i am saying is rhetoric but i am just trying to consider possible scenarios and what benefits such a thing derives for our own forces and MICs.. May be orders for LCH, Arjuns and missiles.. Is not that great for our MICs?

Marketing major?

 

[GURU DUTT]

Strangely we see China avoiding it, wonder why?

look at the history

only a nation with better man power , muscle power , economy and militarry and industrial complex and of course its world staure and intellegence than there enemies trump it dosent matter weather they were justified in there actions or not

now look at chinese they have better economy , militarry industiral complex , man power and world stature next only to super power USA

now look at there militarry buildup and there expension initiatives does it looks like they dont want war ?

chinese are smart and they want all of asia pasific and south asia under there command but instead of blabberring and picking up fights they are quitelly shrpenning there skills and building there militarry power like no other they are prepairing for a very big and sutained war and have taken there sun tzu or whatever his name was teachings of warfare pretty seroully

 

[Hellfire]

Supporting ANA against the Taliban, strengthening the Afghan Government's rule. Securing our current and future investments in Afghanistan. Giving the PAF one more thing to worry about. Keeping the Chinese naval assets in Gwadar covered.

A partial view point if I may say so.

You need to look at it in the cost versus benefit ratio. For us, to engage Pakistan is a less costly and more beneficial option. I reiterate this having a faith in your having read all my posts till now sequentially and joining the posts as and when needed.

@Omega007 you were missing for sometime. Join in

 

[Hellfire]

Do we know that?

Yes we know that, I assure you. Iranians have a separate agenda playing out which is at odds with ours in Afghanistan.

This merely your assumption, I have reasons to believe otherwise

What are they?

Iran has no truck with Taliban. Yes they deal with them because currently Taliban has material leverage, offer to remove that leverage and you will gain but gratitude.

Russia - Again has no love lost with Taliban or for that matter any Jihadist. They do business because its inevitable.

What makes you think that there is regular business going on between Iranians/Russians and Talibanis?

I really take offense at this statement.

You MUST

But will that address the dilemma our security establishment faces?

This is institutional cowardice which is ingrained in India. So fearful that we are ready to continue banging our heads at the brick wall of Pakistan..

What is the alternative, in your view?

What have we got to loose? Pakistan will continue funding separatists and insurgencies in Kashmir irrespective of any our actions. Their whole institutional set up is focused towards hurting India - NOT SAVING PAKISTAN. We have historic and current trends to say this without hesitation.

Unlikely. They are now well aware of the threat to them as a state as they lose their grip over the country and try to re-assert the writ of the State. Yes, they do have a tendency to differentiate between a good and a bad talib, but they pay the price too for that.

So what do we do? We keep ourselves huddled in a corner - thinking any strategic expansion will lead to Jihadi recruitment? Aren't they already recruiting with abandon? Isn't what happening in Kashmir ample proof that we dont need more appeasement either of Pakistan or Hurriyet or Jihadis?

Your impassioned statement is noted with the due respect of your sentiment behind it. Indeed, it is frustrating to see failures repeatedly inspite of best effort to seek good relations. My answer, I have already given in two different posts earlier. You have to read sequentially.

However, I present to you a counter narrative in the form of a saying from Sun Tzu


When you do battle, even if you are winning, if you continue for a long time it will dull your forces and blunt your edge; if you besiege a citadel, your strength will be exhausted. If you keep your armies out in the field for a long time, your supplies will be insufficient.

You are dealing with an ideological state hard put to establish and firm up its national identity, which has, for the majority of its existence, been under a military dictatorship, which has built up the bogey of a 'hegemonistic' India trying to undermine it as a nation and threatening its existence, and capitalised on their first military failure in Kashmir to consolidate the power and this paranoia in the country.

How do you deal with such a nation? An option is to go to war, and defeat it's military, enforce democracy and sue for peace thereafter. But this plays directly into the hands of the narrative as being perpetuated in the country as above.

So, what is the second option? Maybe, strengthen the civil rule, while undermining the military which has control of the intellect of the masses and never fails to portray itself as the harbinger of national unity, peace and pride, while systematically undermining the very same institutes which should have, in the first place, been strengthened to ensure the same? That shall allow a narrative other than military's to make an appearance in national discourse.

I absolutely refuse to believe that as a nation, Pakistan is bereft of people of logic and rationale needed to see the danger to their own society by the present course of events and the sequence of policy formulation and implementation. Simply not digestible.

Think on this aspect, I urge you. And tell me if I am wrong.

What diplomatic capital will we loose? Everyone in the other world except Pakistan will be relieved by expiry of Taliban.. Which country supports Taliban except for Pakistan?

KSA, UAE.

Do you think it is wisdom to do other's bidding?

Again I quote Sun Tzu:

The rules of the military are five: measurement, assessment, calculation, comparison, and victory. The ground gives rise to measurements, measurements give rise to assessments, assessments give rise to calculations, calculations give rise to comparisons, comparisons give rise to victories.

@GURU DUTT

I standby my statement - taking out Taliban forcefully has no downside except that we get ourselves rid of this passive appeasement policy and irrational fear of backlash even when doing the morally and strategically right thing.

I shall strongly urge you to give the above quote a serious thought after going through my posts till now, sequentially.

Thanks

chinese are smart and they want all of asia pasific and south asia under there command but instead of blabberring and picking up fights they are quitelly shrpenning there skills and building there militarry power like no other they are prepairing for a very big and sutained war and have taken there sun tzu or whatever his name was teachings of warfare pretty seroully

There, you have answered for me

@Joe Shearer On your birthday, few pearls of wisdom .... ?

 

[Tshering22]

China - It used it's enormous investment in it's defense Industries to expand geographically by claiming and holding on to large territories in SCS and elsewhere occasionally successfully.


Russia - Did it to expand into Ukraine and Georgia

USA - It has been consistently furthering it's Eco-geo-political objectives in ME and Asia on the back of it's armed forces since it's inception in one form or other

Europe - Mainly concerned with internal security and Deterrence hence we see investment going down.

Gulf/KSA/UAE - We saw expansionist mind set in Yemen which has since been scaled back after losses

Coming to India - Can we justify investments just on the basis of deterrence which can be achieved non conventionally? Or should we take baby steps so that the cost of training, risk of expiry of platforms and consumables without usage, salaries etc which are inevitable in such a large armed forces do not form just a sunk portion of our budget with no returns? Or can we utilize it to expand our geo-political foot prints in the region. Not straight out territorial gains but to perhaps support and further the regimes favorable to us.

Pakistan - Perhaps has gained maximum bang for the buck though not w/o blow back. Afghanistan and Kashmir are the two prime examples of them using their armed forces to successfully contest and contain a much larger adversary. Presence in Gulf on the other hand has given them considerable economic dividends.

Firstly India is not as autonomous in defence equipment production as USA, Russia or China are since our industrial manufacturing base especially government defence PSUs is very much still below production standards than these countries in general. Let's face it; HAL cannot make 220 jets in 7 years even if Modi himself visited them and gave them his written consent directly to do the same.

Secondly, we don't have a strategic mindset. We only voice out things and matters where it directly concerns either our nationals or our territory or politics. That's it.

Thirdly, we have a internationally pacifist mindset. The Purulia arms drop case is a big example. Had it been Israel or USA or Russia instead of India, they would have dispatched secret agents to hunt down the Danish national and his backers in Denmark itself.

We instead just downgraded our relations. That too when we have almost zero meaningful relations between the two countries.

Had we brought him back the way CIA, Mossad and FSB does, it would have sent a message across the world not to mess with us.

Unless and until we change these three things, we BETTER NOT look for wars.

 

[ebrahym]

The second, not directly. You were bankrolled by the Saudis too, remember?

not only them
you see Qaddafi was there as well
that is what we got in turn of sending our military
or as the troll guy said "mercenaries"
everything we did was in direct interest of our country
you can not call that aid but merely a payback of our "services"
just how labor export gives remittance
correct me if I am wrong

India indeed is in an expansion phase. You have rightly phrased it, there are no two views about it. However, the expansion is on the back of soft power exclusively, not quite unlike China

well China is ahead of India in Expansion phase
they have passed soft power test and only field left for them is hard power
but they still are largely refraining from them
e.g they still have not built any active Bases in Indian ocean except Eritrea
now if you know its location and surroundings you surely know that it does not conflict with US, West and by that India

An antithesis. How?

i think i stated that in the very same post

What of them?

everyone was talking about having an airbase for support in Afghanistan
i just pointed them out and one of the Ayni airbase has active Indian jets
perhaps MiG-21s

What makes you think that there is regular business going on between Iranians/Russians and Talibanis?

Taliban here comes my domain so i must respond
you see russia wants to use Taliban to counter ISIS which is trying to infiltrate into already troubled Central Asia
for Iran you need to search for fatimayoon brigade you will get your answer
plus Iran never supported all of northern alliance but factions of it like HiG
and now there is evidence to believe they are also supporting Hazara militia, and kolachi tribes which is a little disputed however they do support RIEA though
all in all Irans objectives in Afghanistan are still blur
they are exporting their revolution there as well to counter Wahabism(dominant in Pathans)
but also wants to get the fare share of trade with India through Afghanistan or vice versa

 

[nair]

Coming to India - Can we justify investments just on the basis of deterrence which can be achieved non conventionally? Or should we take baby steps so that the cost of training, risk of expiry of platforms and consumables without usage, salaries etc which are inevitable in such a large armed forces do not form just a sunk portion of our budget with no returns? Or can we utilize it to expand our geo-political foot prints in the region. Not straight out territorial gains but to perhaps support and further the regimes favorable to us

I thought our military objectives are clear..... Defend the territory and the national interest....Nothing less nothing more........ We have been doing that all these years, and we will be doing that in future especially with the modernization plans we have......

 

[Hellfire]

not only them
you see Qaddafi was there as well
that is what we got in turn of sending our military
or as the troll guy said "mercenaries"
everything we did was in direct interest of our country
you can not call that aid but merely a payback of our "services"
just how labor export gives remittance
correct me if I am wrong

well China is ahead of India in Expansion phase
they have passed soft power test and only field left for them is hard power
but they still are largely refraining from them
e.g they still have not built any active Bases in Indian ocean except Eritrea
now if you know its location and surroundings you surely know that it does not conflict with US, West and by that India

i think i stated that in the very same post

everyone was talking about having an airbase for support in Afghanistan
i just pointed them out and one of the Ayni airbase has active Indian jets
perhaps MiG-21s


Taliban here comes my domain so i must respond
you see russia wants to use Taliban to counter ISIS which is trying to infiltrate into already troubled Central Asia
for Iran you need to search for fatimayoon brigade you will get your answer
plus Iran never supported all of northern alliance but factions of it like HiG
and now there is evidence to believe they are also supporting Hazara militia, and kolachi tribes which is a little disputed however they do support RIEA though
all in all Irans objectives in Afghanistan are still blur
they are exporting their revolution there as well to counter Wahabism(dominant in Pathans)
but also wants to get the fare share of trade with India through Afghanistan or vice versa

Don't respond in any way where the thread gets derailed, we will have an interesting discussion on FACTs only. Will give a detailed reply to you later. Valid points, all. I will counter few, and I agree on few.

Will get back.

Thanks

I thought our military objectives are clear..... Defend the territory and the national interest....Nothing less nothing more........ We have been doing that all these years, and we will be doing that in future especially with the modernization plans we have......

Must really thank @Spectre for posting a very interesting thread.

You are right as you have posted above. However, he has raised very interesting points too.

@Levina your attention is requested.

 

[nair]

Must really thank @Spectre for posting a very interesting thread.

You are right as you have posted above. However, he has raised very interesting points too.

@Spectre is known for opening crazy threads which normally attract excellent discussion........This is one of them.... Yes i havent completed the thread yet....An interesting one for sure......
Edit: I couldnt agree more with your points in this thread....

 

[SrNair]

Which nations will maintain a big military ?Obviously a big nation will maintain such a big military .
Big nations will have more objectives like that mentioned in OP .
Additionally they also need to protect a large border since a large nation will always have a lots of resources that need to be protected.

US maintains world most deadliest military because they have more resources than most of the others .
Those who failed to maintain such a clear advantage will see the kind of destruction that saw some ancient kingdoms .

In India's case ,we have a military that clearly match with our economy .
But some nations have have unusually large AF like in Israel case .

Except US and Russia no others still dont have a clear AF advantage .For now ,China and India has a military that necessarily for their region's protection .
If they need a strategic reach they should invest in AF .

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

I standby my statement - taking out Taliban forcefully has no downside except that we get ourselves rid of this passive appeasement policy and irrational fear of backlash even when doing the morally and strategically right thing.

Don't want to throw a wrench in your gears, of a good thread, but what's India's plan on getting rid of the Taliban when the powerful nations of NATO have decided a political solution is necessary?

That is why Pakistan has to be engaged. They are doing a great job in FATA et al. The moment you induct troops, it becomes the takfiri narrative of kafir versus the mussalman

Why do you want to insert troops into Afghanistan when your objectives are being accomplished by the ISAF/ANA/ $Aid?

Take a look at China, letting other's clear out a place and then coming in with $Millions/ Billions for resource extraction.

 

[Hellfire]

Why do you want to insert troops into Afghanistan when your objectives are being accomplished by the ISAF/ANA/ $Aid?

Take a look at China, letting other's clear out a place and then coming in with $Millions/ Billions for resource extraction.

Exactly!