What's new

US eyes Port Blair as new drone base

I'm always confused when people who should know better start spewing standard rhetoric better left to dim wit politicians to make. This is a military forum & such a question should be debated on merits. I, for one, don't see any harm in giving the U.S. access to the bases in the Andaman & Nicobar islands. It is giving access, not handing over a base. The comparison with Pakistan is silly because the intended targets are not in India. However there is no such thing as a free lunch. We can give the U.S. access but only if we get something in return, that something being of good value for us. To behave otherwise would be to be cussed when not required to.

What is in it for us?

1. Will we be offered the F-22?
2. Will we be offered to not sign the constricting defence rules set for exports CISMOA?
3. Will the US stop offering aid to Pakistan, if we tell them to?
4. Will the US lift all exceptions on India's trade with Iran?
5. Will the US provide an iron clad guarantee that in case of a further nuclear test by India, the sanctions will not kick in?
6. Will the US side with India on environmental issues?
7. Will India be provided with preferential access to the US markets, if we setup manufacturing hubs? Which means diverting imports from China to India.

If the answers are in the positive, then we should talk. But, if the above are going to lead to discussions then there is no point talking.

Having said the above, does it fit into our overall requirement. The Malacca straits is as of date a choke point. It is and will remain in the forseeable future a strategic tool for India to monitor movements. Which means we will have equipment and tools which are sensitive to our interests. Would we want to share this with a new found acquaintance? Would it not be better to initiate routes where we provide information to strategic partners where control rests with us? That would in my opinion serve us better.
 
.
What is in it for us?

1. Will we be offered the F-22?
2. Will we be offered to not sign the constricting defence rules set for exports CISMOA?
3. Will the US stop offering aid to Pakistan, if we tell them to?
4. Will the US lift all exceptions on India's trade with Iran?
5. Will the US provide an iron clad guarantee that in case of a further nuclear test by India, the sanctions will not kick in?
6. Will the US side with India on environmental issues?
7. Will India be provided with preferential access to the US markets, if we setup manufacturing hubs? Which means diverting imports from China to India.

If the answers are in the positive, then we should talk. But, if the above are going to lead to discussions then there is no point talking.

Having said the above, does it fit into our overall requirement. The Malacca straits is as of date a choke point. It is and will remain in the forseeable future a strategic tool for India to monitor movements. Which means we will have equipment and tools which are sensitive to our interests. Would we want to share this with a new found acquaintance? Would it not be better to initiate routes where we provide information to strategic partners where control rests with us? That would in my opinion serve us better.


My point is simple. Discuss any such request if & when made. Discuss alternatives options as mentioned by you. If we are happy with what we get in return, proceed. Otherwise, say a polite & a firm no. The point is not to pre-judge the situation based on ideological leanings.

P.S. Btw, discussing the maximum for any favour asked is not much of a negotiation. Local agreements cannot be used to obtain a panacea for every imagined ailment. The demand must be in line with the request, otherwise will just border on the absurd.
 
.
My point is simple. Discuss any such request if & when made. Discuss alternatives options as mentioned by you. If we are happy with what we get in return, proceed. Otherwise, say a polite & a firm no. The point is not to pre-judge the situation based on ideological leanings.

Agreed. No emotions in promoting our interests.
 
.
An entire USAF squadron of C-130(40th Airlift "Screaming Eagles") was redeployed from France and based in in Delhi for urgent resupply and medivac of Indian troops fighting the Chinese in 1962.
The deployment lasted a year.



40th Airlift Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Untold Story: How US came to India's aid in 1962 - Rediff.com India News

there is a difference between helping out in times of crisis and permanently assigning materials and assets to a certain task...your claim that there were US bases in India since the USAF airlifted Indian men & materials with only 12 C-130's which were only used for logistics and if this story is true the C-130's would have operated out of Indian airbases and no new base was built to base them...so you are totally ill-informed or have the wrong presumptions about US bases in India...Moreover as per reports if true the deployment only lasted a year and were only in support of Indian troops
 
.
there is a difference between helping out in times of crisis and permanently assigning materials and assets to a certain task...your claim that there were US bases in India since the USAF airlifted Indian men & materials with only 12 C-130's which were only used for logistics and if this story is true the C-130's would have operated out of Indian airbases and no new base was built to base them...so you are totally ill-informed or have the wrong presumptions about US bases in India...Moreover as per reports if true the deployment only lasted a year and were only in support of Indian troops


I am not sentimental here...even if it is not for protection of India...foreign troops, bases or assets will never be allowed on Indian soil...period....and that is the final truth.....

So your final truth has come caveats? :rolleyes:
 
. . .
One of the giveaways of having US bases is that the host country does not have any jurisdiction over the mis-behaviour / mis-conduct of US personnel .
 
.
My point is simple. Discuss any such request if & when made. Discuss alternatives options as mentioned by you. If we are happy with what we get in return, proceed. Otherwise, say a polite & a firm no. The point is not to pre-judge the situation based on ideological leanings.

P.S. Btw, discussing the maximum for any favour asked is not much of a negotiation. Local agreements cannot be used to obtain a panacea for every imagined ailment. The demand must be in line with the request, otherwise will just border on the absurd.

Negotiation is done at the maximum, my friend. You then arrive at a meeting point. Now, what is defined as maximum will vary according to points of view. For e.g : in my view providing access of your territory to another country to base its assets for use against other countries is maximum.
 
.
Negotiation is done at the maximum, my friend. You then arrive at a meeting point. Now, what is defined as maximum will vary according to points of view. For e.g : in my view providing access of your territory to another country to base its assets for use against other countries is maximum.


Not really. If you bring in a laundry list, you are unlikely to be taken seriously & such negotiations are more of the NK, Iran, even Pakistan variety. No charity is done in international relations. Negotiations have a band around which one negotiates. In any case, as you said, this is subjective & can differ. If the U.S. does base drones in the Andamans, I'm sure that some access to footage will be part of any deal. It certainly won't be just a favour.
 
.
One of the giveaways of having US bases is that the host country does not have any jurisdiction over the mis-behaviour / mis-conduct of US personnel .

That is not true. US troops does not have diplomatic immunity outside of the bases. US troops are under the local jurisdiction if commit a crime.
 
.
Not really. If you bring in a laundry list, you are unlikely to be taken seriously & such negotiations are more of the NK, Iran, even Pakistan variety. No charity is done in international relations. Negotiations have a band around which one negotiates. In any case, as you said, this is subjective & can differ. If the U.S. does base drones in the Andamans, I'm sure that some access to footage will be part of any deal. It certainly won't be just a favour.

But before going to the table for any discussion, we must think that even if we crack a hell out of a deal, it will have a geo-political impact on the Chinese. and that I would say is my biggest worry.
 
.
Not really. If you bring in a laundry list, you are unlikely to be taken seriously & such negotiations are more of the NK, Iran, even Pakistan variety. No charity is done in international relations. Negotiations have a band around which one negotiates. In any case, as you said, this is subjective & can differ. If the U.S. does base drones in the Andamans, I'm sure that some access to footage will be part of any deal. It certainly won't be just a favour.

If you have been in any negotiations, first thing you check is what are what we call the levels of tolerance. That is always done from maximum. Why? Maximum varies according to point of view. For e.g maximum for me would be to base IAF F-22 Raptors in US territory. Would that be your POv? Not necessary.

Also, your point of US based drones on Indian territory under the operational command of USPACOM is in my opinion maximum levels of tolerance. IAF operating them is one level lower. So as you see, you negotiate. Depending on what one is ready to give and take. While we both agree on negotiation, where we differ is in tolerance levels of exchange.
 
.
But before going to the table for any discussion, we must think that even if we crack a hell out of a deal, it will have a geo-political impact on the Chinese. and that I would say is my biggest worry.

Do the Chinese worry when they assist the Pakistanis? I see no reason for India to offer up a courtesy not being offered to it in return.
 
.
While extending strategic partnership with US is beneficial for both the countries, it is not appropriate for us to allow foreign troops stationed in our country. We have the fourth largest armed forces on earth after US, Russia and China and therefore it would only undermine our own strategic position in the region and away.

However, I am not confident of what this regime does. So I hope this discussion can be delayed until GE 2014 is over and a new regime comes to power.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom