Ok so we are taking a loan out to pay for the JF-17s/J-10. Now do you think the $30 billion that India plans to spend over the next 5 years for defence purchases will simply come out of your Forex? 98% of that money will be loaned and paid over time. These are all capital expenditures. Just like Pakistan finances them, so will India. The difference here is that India can borrow more due to the collateral in her kitty. Whereas Pakistan's is less than that of India's.
Surgical strike syndrome
- Thread starter foxhound
- Start date
From india,s massive relative budget 30% is a wages salaries pensions etc.
40% is current operational coasts/ maintenance
10% is research and production
30% approx $8 billion was for purchase of big ticket items like
annual induction of 10 su30 mki
or a new destroyer or frigate or AWACS ETC.
i DON,T thimk israel or Russia gives as loans.
£" infact russia screws us big time lately "
WHIVH IS WHY THEY WILL LOSE THE $11 BILLION MRCA DEAL
40% is current operational coasts/ maintenance
10% is research and production
30% approx $8 billion was for purchase of big ticket items like
annual induction of 10 su30 mki
or a new destroyer or frigate or AWACS ETC.
i DON,T thimk israel or Russia gives as loans.
£" infact russia screws us big time lately "
WHIVH IS WHY THEY WILL LOSE THE $11 BILLION MRCA DEAL
iamunique
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi,
Coming back to the point... I would like to mention the following facts:
1) Absolute Supremacy -- Past history shows that surgical strikes have been carried out by countries that have had overwhelming superiority (whether numerical or technological) over the target country. In that respect, India does not have that kind of
superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan.
2) Superior Intelligence -- Surgical strikes have been carried out by countries which knew very well where & what the target was. In that respect, I doubt if the India has a proper list of targets to be struck in Pakistan. The 26/11 attacks have proven that India's intelligence gathering capabilities are upto snuff.
3)Willpower & sense of urgency - all the countries which have conducted surgical strikes have had the willpower to go ahead and do it and they did so immediately. Over here, I've been hearing about 'surgical strikes' for the 1 and 1/2 months and till now we
are yet to see any surgeons or any surgery!
Finally, let us realise that surgical strikes are effective only against an opposing military force with fixed/high-value targets and not against non-military combatants (terrorists) who don't have any permanent addresses!
Coming back to the point... I would like to mention the following facts:
1) Absolute Supremacy -- Past history shows that surgical strikes have been carried out by countries that have had overwhelming superiority (whether numerical or technological) over the target country. In that respect, India does not have that kind of
superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan.
2) Superior Intelligence -- Surgical strikes have been carried out by countries which knew very well where & what the target was. In that respect, I doubt if the India has a proper list of targets to be struck in Pakistan. The 26/11 attacks have proven that India's intelligence gathering capabilities are upto snuff.
3)Willpower & sense of urgency - all the countries which have conducted surgical strikes have had the willpower to go ahead and do it and they did so immediately. Over here, I've been hearing about 'surgical strikes' for the 1 and 1/2 months and till now we
are yet to see any surgeons or any surgery!
Finally, let us realise that surgical strikes are effective only against an opposing military force with fixed/high-value targets and not against non-military combatants (terrorists) who don't have any permanent addresses!
Salaam!
Another interesting article.......
Surgical strike syndrome
ref:Surgical strike syndrome
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Ikramullah Bhatti
A surgical strike, mostly through air power, is a military attack to cause damage to only the intended target, with no, or minimal, collateral damage. Weapons used for this purpose are invariably precision-guided. Examples of surgical strikes are the Israeli bombing of PLO targets in Tunis in 1985 and Israel's 1981 Operation Babylon against Iraq. A third example is the bombing of Libyan targets by US in 1986.
A surgical strike is generally the option of the stronger side. Any unilateral military action can invoke retaliation which could lead to a full-fledged war. Only the stronger side would be ready and willing to take this risk.
When Israel attacked the PLO in Tunis in 1985, the UN Security Council passed a resolution US abstention condemning the action. Even the US expressed its disapproval but abstained. In any case, Israel could get away with it.
Though it was not a classic surgical strike, the botched US rescue attempt in Tehran in 1980 was launched to rescue US nationals. However, the hidden objective of President Carter was to ensure the release under his administration and eventually win the Democratic nomination for the presidential election. Iran released the held personnel immediately after Ronald Reagan took office.
The last requisite for surgical strikes is there is little possibility of retaliation, or for the retaliation to be bearable. In addition to likely international criticism, the victim country is bound to react to such an attack. This reaction would understandably depend on its politico-military capability and readiness for a response. Therefore, besides a diplomatic campaign, the victim country could opt to launch reciprocal attacks. These attacks will have to take place only minutes later, or there would be international intervention and the victim country would be prevented from resorting to this course of action. Hence, a retaliation would almost be certain. Furthermore, military activity may not end here and there would be a serious danger of a snowball phenomenon leading to a limited or even all-out war. A surgical strike would, therefore, become an option for a country when it has evaluated and discounted this requisite.
In the India-Pakistan context, it was in the third week of December that the readiness and willingness of the Indian air force for surgical strikes became apparent. Realising the seriousness of the situation the PAF immediately deployed its defensive elements at strategic locations and started 24-hour patrolling of the designated areas. This was further backed up by a declaration by the Pakistani government that an attack of this nature will be taken as an act of war and that Pakistan would respond and without delay. Meanwhile, the government's crackdown was already going on against the organisation declared terrorist by the UN. This crackdown has resulted in the arrest of several individuals and the closing down of numerous premises. By these three actions Pakistan was able to not only neutralise the legitimacy of the Indian cause for the attack but it also clearly indicated to the Indians that such an adventure would be very expensive. Therefore, a clear message was sent out by Pakistan to the west that it was seriously responding to the UN's call but no Indian adventurism would be accepted. Seeing this, the tone and tenor of the Indian leadership and their media has undergone a positive change. India is also accepting foreign envoys to discuss and resolve the situation. An Indian surgical strike has thus become less likely.
While it is airpower that is employed for surgical strikes, such an attack could be best countered by air power. The PAF would thus be responsible for defence against such an Indian attack. The PAF has always fought against India outnumbered by the IAF. Nevertheless, the PAF always enjoyed a technological or qualitative advantage over the IAF. This edge has, however, eroded due to sanctions on Pakistan in different periods of time. On the other hand, the planners of the PAF have earnestly worked and, despite limited resources, the PAF has upgraded all its aircraft, weapon and sensors. It does have some weaknesses which are in the process of being addressed. On exhaustion of other options, disputes between nations are being settled today not by occupying territory but by inflicting pain. Appreciating the significance of air power as the weapon of first choice in present-day warfare, the government has been providing requisite resources for the accomplishment of the PAF's development programmes. If the government maintains this support, the PAF is poised to regain its qualitative pre-eminence in the near future.
Though its likelihood has reduced to an extent, a surgical strike in the Indo-Pakistani scenario remains a clear and present danger. Nonetheless, India can opt to resort to it anytime because in the Indo-Pakistani scenario there will never be dearth of reasons and justifications. The Pakistani government and the PAF have sent out clear messages demonstrating their resolve to fight terrorism and their intent to defend Pakistan at the same time. Now it is up to India and the western world to understand and act.
The writer is a former air vice-marshal of the PAF. Email: ikram_bhatti@ yahoo.com
Also an interview of the same author with Geo News when all this stuff was going on some time back:
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Article
