What's new

Would America Back India in a War?

This is that table:

image-jpg.217170


The firs part actually refers to this: (clearly military aid to Pakistan, not India)

Obama proposes over $1 billion civil, military aid to Pakistan
PTI | Feb 3, 2015, 06.58PM IST
Barack Obama has proposed over $1 billion in civilian and military aid to "strategically important" Pakistan for fighting terror, economic development, safety of nuclear installations ...
Obama proposes over $1 billion civil, military aid to Pakistan - The Times of India
Obama is a joker, don't know what his administration is doing really in regards to our neighboring country, better can be used for its own than giving money and getting bumps from behind,
 
.
Obama is a joker, don't know what his administration is doing really in regards to our neighboring country, better can be used for its own than giving money and getting bumps from behind,

Why Obama should do anything for your own problems? Is india's prime minister Modi eunuch?(Bharat ka pradhan-mantri Modi hijada hai kya??) :cheesy: Typical mentally slavish indians.

USA is not free. It is a colony of white men, who immigrated from Europe 400 to 600 years back, genocided all native civilization(yes, there was one - they were happy and prosperous people with trading links), pushed them into jungles and now became ruler of USA. Columbus didn't "discover" West, he was a Christian missionary agent(not your bollywood movie agent) who was sent to collect information on people in West, mix with them and then attack. All shale oil, mineral resources which white-men are enjoying in USA, is not theirs. They belong to native americans, who are now not even part of power-structure and ownership. None of any oil-company has native-american owner. I am telling you all this, because you clearly has no brains, to research/study anything beyond what arnab tatti-swami says on screen inside your home. :coffee:

So-called independence war of USA, was a fraud, just optics, a clever writing of history. It was faught between White-men on USA vs. White-men of Britishers, to create an impression amongst natives that "now you are free, we kicked bad white-guys out. We are good white-guys". Google "California genocide" and dig into real history of USA.

Check how many senators/presidents in USA have been from Native people in 250 years. Zero. You are quite a fool(just like Modi and RSS), to even expect that white-men are in Asia, to help you. They are here to rule your a$$ and dictate terms to you. Modi is a chhakka(eunuch), who bows to IMF and World Bank. China must be praised for refusing both - English and Western definition of Life/Economy/Ethics/Justice/Society/Culture. China never begs west for "approval". Modi is busy licking feets of mahatma's statue in western nations, as that is "certificate" to him, from gora master. He stands like good baby. :rofl:

Help yourself and stop crying like a gay coward. If you can't handle a small pakistan, then send ur daughters to muslims in bollywood, and be a slave of islamic invaders(Ajmer/Taj-mahal/Akbar). Modi is doing that already, by making up with SajjadLone. Modi has forgotten that he got 282, only due to HINDU polarization in UP(73 seats out of 80). Rajasthan voted in full, because of attack on Asaram(i have friends, who told me about his massive popularity, despite fake charges by a mentally unstable girl). Kashmiri hindus rejected Modi in elections for doing this haramkhori with hindus. This is what happened with Hajpayee too(got a kick in his balls in 2004 elections). ;)

You are behaving like those Africans, who run to Christian West, for solving their problems. A mindset of a slave. China also has some retarded people like you, China jails them the moment they are detected to set an example. India need similar laws,

crying on internet and begging USA for help. :rofl: :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Would America Back India in a War?
1280px-Arjun_MBT_bump_track_test_2.JPG

Iskander Rehman
April 22, 2015

Last month, I had the privilege of taking part in a Track 1.5 strategic dialogue on Indo-U.S. relations. Held in New Delhi, the gathering was an unabashed success, and the richness and candor of the discussions aptly reflected the renewed momentum of the bilateral relationship. Over the course of the event, much mention was made of Obama’s recent visit, and of one document in particular: the U.S. India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region.

Shortly after having completed my presentation on Indo-U.S. cooperation in the Indian Ocean, I was asked a pointed question by a retired Indian Navy Admiral. Should India, queried the Admiral, read more deeply into both governments’ decision to jointly reference the importance of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? More specifically, did this mean that the United States would provide military assistance to India in the event of a Sino-Indian naval confrontation in maritime Southeast Asia?

As the distinguished veteran concluded his remarks, I could almost hear the sighs of relief emanating from some of the U.S. government participants. Thank God, they were no doubt thinking, that this question was addressed to a non-government employee. I found myself compelled, however, to give the vague and somewhat bureaucratic response that any U.S. official would have made.

Much would depend, naturally, on the circumstances of the incident, and whether China was clearly perceived as the aggressor. But, I added, one must not forget that while India was a valued strategic partner of the United States, it was not an ally. Strategic partnerships, however tight and wide-ranging they may appear, do not come with the binding security guarantees that traditionally characterize alliance structures.

And therein lies the rub. Even though the Indo-U.S. entente is perhaps this century’s single most important bilateral relationship, with the greatest potential to positively shape the Asian security environment, it is not-nor will it ever be-a formalized alliance. The reasons for this singular state of affairs are well known.

Indeed, since independence, New Delhi’s grand strategy has always been coterminous with a quest for greater strategic autonomy, and with a solid aversion for any form of partnership that could lead to entanglement. This autonomy is perceived as a key enabler, allowing India to practice a “multi-vectored” diplomacy that maximizes freedom of maneuver, while minimizing the risks of friction that could flow from more solidified alignments

Historical studies have pointed to the inherent plasticity of any successful grand strategy. This is something that India’s foremost strategists have fully interiorized, with a much-discussed-and unfairly lampooned-2012 study placing a strong emphasis on subtlety over “narrow linear narratives about what serves our (India’s) national interest,” in a world which is described as both fragmented and in flux. India’s grand strategy, the authors pursue, “will require a skillful management of complicated coalitions and opportunities in environments that may be inherently unstable and volatile rather than structurally settled.”

As India’s growth in wealth, influence and power becomes more manifest, it has presented the United States with a unique form of diplomatic challenge. While Chinese nationalists have argued in favor of a “new model of great power relations,” India’s political leadership seeks, first and foremost, a new model of strategic partnership. This partnership may come to yield a number of rich dividends in the defense realm, in terms of technology and intelligence sharing, joint training, or arms sales. Yet singularly absent are the most important components of any alliance—a clear strategic direction, and a sense of reciprocal security commitments and/or guarantees.

India may, according to some reports, hold more joint military exercises with the United States than any other country, but nobody quite knows the conditions under which Indian jawans and U.S. grunts would find themselves crouching in the same foxhole.
Similarly, both countries’ defense communities may be moving toward cooperating on issues as sensitive and as critical as aircraft carrier design, but it remains uncertain whether the U.S. Navy would intervene were the INS Vikramaditya to find itself crippled by a Chinese torpedo.

To be fair, neither country expects the other to automatically intervene in the event of conflict. Indian security managers have long grappled with the grim prospect of fighting a two-front war alone, although the rapid growth in Chinese military strength and steady hemorrhaging of India’s fighter squadrons have begun to raise serious questions over the continued viability of this posture. American planners, for their part, rarely factor Indian military forces into their wargaming scenarios for the Indo-Pacific. Influential champions of the Indo-U.S. relationship, such as Ashley Tellis, have rightly observed that it does not require clearly defined mutual security commitments in order to be transformational, and that it is in the U.S. interests to bolster Indian power regardless. By virtue of its sheer size, geographical position, and latent capabilities, there is a certain degree of automaticity to India’s emergence as a major balancing power in Asia.

Nevertheless, it would no doubt behoove security communities in both countries to more frequently discuss and game out black swan scenarios that could, depending on how they are managed (or mismanaged), either irreparably damage, or durably reinforce the Indo-U.S. security relationship.

The most oft cited, and perhaps most likely, scenario is another major terrorist attack in India, with origins that clearly trace back to elements within Pakistan’s byzantine security apparatus. The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was widely lauded by the international community for its measured response following the Mumbai attacks of 2008. Few analysts believe that the current Indian government would-or could-exert such restraint. Modi’s forceful response to recent disturbances along the Indo-Pakistani border, when viewed in combination with the Indian National Security Advisor’s recent statements on the need for India to adopt a more “offensive form of defense,” should act as clear signals to American observers that India cannot-and will not-simply absorb another Mumbai.

There would be enormous public pressure within India for the government to act, and a roster of punitive actions would no doubt be considered. These options might range from the establishment of a maritime exclusion zone off Pakistan’s Makran coast, to cross-border special forces raids, to standoff missile and airstrikes against terrorist training camps, with the last option being the most likely. As people such as George Perkovich have thoughtfully demonstrated, all of these options are fraught with risk, and have the potential for grave escalation. Yet if military inaction on the part of the Indian government is no longer conceivable, they will all need to be considered—especially if the only alternative is a large-scale mobilization of ground forces in the vein of Operation Parakram.

If India were to engage in a military riposte against terrorist or hybrid elements on Pakistani soil, what should be the position of the U.S. government? Should the U.S. publicly support India’s actions, or should it remain silent? It is highly unlikely that the Indo-U.S. relationship could recover were Washington to choose the latter. Perhaps more importantly, should the U.S. go beyond publicly supporting to enabling certain Indian cross-border strikes, by providing actionable intelligence? One could imagine that in some cases, providing a more accurate picture of the situation might in fact help mitigate escalation and reduce casualties, either by helping India discriminate in-between terrorist actors and civilians co-located within dense urban environments, or by helping Indian military planners more effectively tailor their response. So might the emergency provision of certain forms of military equipment, ranging from precision munitions to night vision equipment for India’s special forces. U.S. policymakers would need to carefully balance these considerations against their longstanding concerns over the risks of irredeemably alienating Pakistan’s men in khaki. These decisions would naturally be heavily influenced by a number of other externalities, such as the state of domestic and international opinion, the number and nationality of the terrorists’ victims, and the importance attached by the U.S. administration to its respective ties with each country.

If, God forbid, the crisis were to evolve into something far more serious, and U.S. intelligence officials were to get wind of the imminent deployment within Pakistan of tactical nuclear weapons, should they alert their Indian counterparts? Choosing to do so would almost certainly be viewed by the Pakistanis as an act of brazen hostility, but opting for silence might be perceived by New Delhi (were its intelligence services to subsequently find out), as an equally unmentionable betrayal.

The tense situation along the Sino-Indian border and how it might pertain to the future of the U.S.-India security relationship also warrants greater scrutiny. In the event of a Sino-Indian border war, would decision-makers in New Delhi once again turn in desperation to the United States for assistance, as they did during the 1962 war? And if they did, would an increasingly cautious and war-weary United States respond with the same vigor of the Kennedy administration? What form could U.S. assistance take? Might the United States, for example, be able to provide vital non-kinetic assistance in the form of cyber attacks against Chinese battle networks? Could the U.S. work behind the scenes to provide Indian forces with more robust space-based surveillance intelligence and better real-time targeting information? Would such forms of covert assistance be considered less escalatory than providing India with direct military support? Or would the White House, echoing its current ambivalence to the arming of forces in Ukraine, prevaricate and/or refuse to come to India’s aid? These questions could also apply to India’s stance in the event of a Sino-aU.S. war in Northeast Asia. Would New Delhi remain on the sidelines while conflict raged in-between its foremost geopolitical rival and its most powerful democratic partner? Might such an event be viewed by India as a welcome opportunity to consolidate its own position along the Sino-Indian border? Could India provide the United States and its allies with intelligence on Chinese subsurface and surface deployments in the Indian Ocean? If conflict were to spill out of the Malacca Strait and into the Indian Ocean, how would the Indian Navy and Air Force respond?

These are but a few of the contingencies that both countries’ security communities should be discussing, whether in the form of joint wargaming between both militaries or under the aegis of future Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues. For while the Indo-U.S. relationship will continue to make progress in times of peace, it is in times of crisis that it will be forged-for better or for worse.

Iskander Rehman, Non-Resident Fellow for South Asia, Atlantic Council of the United States.
no one helps no one in any war until or unless there own interests are at stake and indian cant forget USAs help in 1962 and USA taking sides with pakistan against india when it sent its 7th fleet to bay of bengal so its matter of trust than anything else and indians dont trust anybody and beleave that we are alone so for last 50 years been building owr defence like that onli we actually dont need american "help"
 
.
This is that table:

image-jpg.217170


The firs part actually refers to this: (clearly military aid to Pakistan, not India)

Obama proposes over $1 billion civil, military aid to Pakistan
PTI | Feb 3, 2015, 06.58PM IST
Barack Obama has proposed over $1 billion in civilian and military aid to "strategically important" Pakistan for fighting terror, economic development, safety of nuclear installations ...
Obama proposes over $1 billion civil, military aid to Pakistan - The Times of India

This is the "table" that you conveniently are trying to forget ;

Where Does U.S. Military Aid Go?
 
.
Asians should deal with their own issues. America has enough of our own problems to worry about.
You should put up your real falg i.e. Chinese flag.

Don't be a false flagger forever.
 
. .
Only small,weak and economically gutted nations required the help of others not India which has Paramilitary on par with light infantry let alone 2nd largest Army
 
.
America, including UK, China and pakistan all are still India's potential enemies in war doctrines that why we are making agni 6 to counter them.
 
.
Why Obama should do anything for your own problems? Is india's prime minister Modi eunuch?(Bharat ka pradhan-mantri Modi hijada hai kya??) :cheesy: Typical mentally slavish indians.

USA is not free. It is a colony of white men, who immigrated from Europe 400 to 600 years back, genocided all native civilization(yes, there was one - they were happy and prosperous people with trading links), pushed them into jungles and now became ruler of USA. Columbus didn't "discover" West, he was a Christian missionary agent(not your bollywood movie agent) who was sent to collect information on people in West, mix with them and then attack. All shale oil, mineral resources which white-men are enjoying in USA, is not theirs. They belong to native americans, who are now not even part of power-structure and ownership. None of any oil-company has native-american owner. I am telling you all this, because you clearly has no brains, to research/study anything beyond what arnab tatti-swami says on screen inside your home. :coffee:

So-called independence war of USA, was a fraud, just optics, a clever writing of history. It was faught between White-men on USA vs. White-men of Britishers, to create an impression amongst natives that "now you are free, we kicked bad white-guys out. We are good white-guys". Google "California genocide" and dig into real history of USA.

Check how many senators/presidents in USA have been from Native people in 250 years. Zero. You are quite a fool(just like Modi and RSS), to even expect that white-men are in Asia, to help you. They are here to rule your a$$ and dictate terms to you. Modi is a chhakka(eunuch), who bows to IMF and World Bank. China must be praised for refusing both - English and Western definition of Life/Economy/Ethics/Justice/Society/Culture. China never begs west for "approval". Modi is busy licking feets of mahatma's statue in western nations, as that is "certificate" to him, from gora master. He stands like good baby. :rofl:

Help yourself and stop crying like a gay coward. If you can't handle a small pakistan, then send ur daughters to muslims in bollywood, and be a slave of islamic invaders(Ajmer/Taj-mahal/Akbar). Modi is doing that already, by making up with SajjadLone. Modi has forgotten that he got 282, only due to HINDU polarization in UP(73 seats out of 80). Rajasthan voted in full, because of attack on Asaram(i have friends, who told me about his massive popularity, despite fake charges by a mentally unstable girl). Kashmiri hindus rejected Modi in elections for doing this haramkhori with hindus. This is what happened with Hajpayee too(got a kick in his balls in 2004 elections). ;)

You are behaving like those Africans, who run to Christian West, for solving their problems. A mindset of a slave. China also has some retarded people like you, China jails them the moment they are detected to set an example. India need similar laws,

crying on internet and begging USA for help. :rofl: :rofl:

I edited your post by removing profanity but and didnt delete it for now
next time i will delete it and you might get penalty
please be civil

no one helps no one in any war until or unless there own interests are at stake and indian cant forget USAs help in 1962 and USA taking sides with pakistan against india when it sent its 7th fleet to bay of bengal so its matter of trust than anything else and indians dont trust anybody and beleave that we are alone so for last 50 years been building owr defence like that onli we actually dont need american "help"
you are correct
even the Brits say the same about Americans in WW2 where they took their time. although when they did join they gave their heart and there is no doubt about it.
a nation will only help other when it is in its national interest and has something to gain.
even a country like Pakistan with a very weak and questionable leadership like Pakistan didnt join Saudis in their war on Yemen because the perceived risks and losses were far more than what the Saudis had given them or offered them.
 
.
I edited your post by removing profanity but and didnt delete it for now
next time i will delete it and you might get penalty
please be civil


you are correct
even the Brits say the same about Americans in WW2 where they took their time. although when they did join they gave their heart and there is no doubt about it.
a nation will only help other when it is in its national interest and has something to gain.
even a country like Pakistan with a very weak and questionable leadership like Pakistan didnt join Saudis in their war on Yemen because the perceived risks and losses were far more than what the Saudis had given them or offered them.
war is all about "profits" for any agresor or the ones who "offer help" now there is no one who can "help india in a war"as india has every thing they need to fight a war but the question is who will india go to war with ? is that pakistan or china or USA ..... big question "any hints" ?
 
.
war is all about "profits" for any agresor or the ones who "offer help" now there is no one who can "help india in a war"as india has every thing they need to fight a war but the question is who will india go to war with ? is that pakistan or china or USA ..... big question "any hints" ?
maybe NO body why should it it will risk its economic drive.
at best it will be shadow boxing.

unless an enemy is so weak and insignificant that launching a military campaign will carry no reprisals
(e.g. Saudis launching attack on Yemen, Americans on Afghanistan).. (keeping war of attrition out of scope for now)
 
.
You should put up your real falg i.e. Chinese flag.

Don't be a false flagger forever.

I'm not from China. I'll be a false flagger except with the flag I put on there. Just because I speak the truth about India does not make me not an American.
 
.
of course they will do. They will certainly provide intelligence input atleast.
 
.
The simple answer is NO..
They will try to be all self righteous and tell us not to go to war but have no qualms about bombing any country they fancy .
 
.
I'm not from China. I'll be a false flagger except with the flag I put on there. Just because I speak the truth about India does not make me not an American.
You are chinese false flagger Everybody knows that. That's why you always poke your nose into India related matters.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom