PDA

View Full Version : What if - US army confronted the Indian force on 1971 ?



commander
19 Mar 12,, 15:51
So I read this detailed article on the 1971 India-Pakistan war. I had some doubts and some scenarios running in my mind which could have altered the the history of India post the war. First the article.

1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain (http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html)

Sanskar Shrivastava on Sunday, 30 October 2011

It was in the year 1971 when the two South Asian rivals declared war on each other, causing a great loss to the lives, property and territory in case of Pakistan.

"As the topic sounds controversial, before we begin we would like to tell that every information in this article is sourced. The article was written after a detail analysis of various sources. All the relevant and immediate sources are listed at the end of the Article."

Background:

Before 1971, Bangladesh used to be a part of Pakistan as East Pakistan. According to Najam Sethi, a well respected and honoured journalist from Pakistan, East Pakistan always complained that they received less development funds and less attention from the West Pakistan (Punjabi) dominating government. Bengalis in East Pakistan also resisted the adoption of Urdu as the state language. The revenue from export, whether it was from the Cotton of West Pakistan or Jute of East Pakistan, was handled mainly by West Pakistan. Lastly, in an election conducted just some months before the war, the victory was gained by the East Pakistani leader and still he was not given the power, thus fueling the movement in East Pakistan.

Pakistani army started its operation in East Pakistan to contain the movement and anger among the Bengalis. It is reported that the army was involved in mass killing of public and mass rape of women. India was aware of this and was only waiting for a trigger to start the war. India started receiving huge number of refugees which became unmanageable, pushing it to intervene in the situation.

In May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees, burdening India. After L K Jha (then the Indian ambassador to US) had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas, Nixon commented, 'By God, we will cut off economic aid [to India].'

A few days later, when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'

US and China Connection, A Little Known Fact

(All Excerpts and Sources from 929 page long Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States)

US sympathized with Pakistan, because of various reasons. Among them two reasons were that: firstly, Pakistan belonged to American led military Pact, CENTO and SEATO; secondly, US believed any victory of India will be considered as the expansion of Soviet influence in the parts gained by India with the victory, as it was believed to be a pro Soviet nation, even though they were non aligned.

In a telegram sent to US Secretary of State Will Roger, on March 28, 1971, the staff of the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'

This brought China in the picture. US needed help from China and the messenger was Pakistan. US approached China very secretly on this issue, who was more than welcoming as itbelieved that their relations with US could improve from this onward.

During the second week of July, 1971, Kissinger arrived in Beijing, where he heard the words by then Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai: "In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they [the Indians] are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' On this, Kissinger responded that China should know that the US also backs Pakistan on this issue.

Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister in those times decided to tour most of the Western capitals to prove Indian stand and gain support and sympathy for the Bengalis of East Pakistan. On November 4th and 5th she met Nixon in Washington. Nixon straight forwardly told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.

The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'

The pressure increased in East Pakistan, which attracted Indian attention. Indians were preparing for war and were concentrated on the Eastern front. To divert the pressure, on December 3, in the dark of night, even before India could attack East Pakistan, Pakistan opened western front and air raided six Indian Airfields in Kashmir and Punjab.

The CIA reported to the US President that Indian Prime Minister believes that the Chinese will never intervene militarily in North India, and thus, any action from China would be a surprise for India and Indian military might collapse in tensed situation caused by fighting in three different fronts (East, North and West).

Hearing this, on December 9, Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. The plan was to Surround India from all four sides and force them to retreat and leave East Pakistan.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.' China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan's army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: "NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it." But Beijing never did.

In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?

Soviet Union / Russian Role in the Indo Pakistan 1971 War.

As India had decided to go on with the war, and Indira Gandhi had failed to gain American support and sympathy for the Bengalis who were being tortured in East Pakistan, she finally took a hard move and on August 9, signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with Soviet Union.

The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch, India and the Soviet Union have signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock to America as this was what they feared, expansion of Soviet influence in South Asia. They feared that involvement of Soviet Union could sabotage their plan.

On December 4, just one day after Pakistan raided Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab declaring war on India, America's proxy involvement in the war was becoming clear. Thinking that the Soviet Union might enter the war if they come to know this, which could cause a lot of destruction to Pakistan and American equipment given to Pakistan, US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush [later 41st president of the United States and father of George Bush] introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council, calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. Believing India can win the war and Indira Gandhi being determined to protect the interest of Bengalis, Soviet Union vetoed out the resolution, thus letting India fight for the cause. Nixon and Kissinger pressurized Soviets to a very extent but luck did not support them.

On 3rd December, 1971, the World was shaken by another war between India and Pakistan. Pakistani airforce raided Indian cities and airstrips. The Indian PM, Indira Gandhi, brought the country in the state of emergency and ordered Indian army to reflect the aggression. Fierce military operations developed on the ground, in the air and in the sea.

Historic document: "Confidential. December, 10, 1971. Moscow. For the DM Marshal Andrey Grechko.

According to the information from our ambassador in Delhi, in the very first day of the conflict the Indian destroyer 'Rajput' had sunk a Pakistani submarine with deep bombing. On December, 4 and 9, the speed boats of India had destroyed and damaged 10 Pakistani battle ships and vessels by Soviet anti ship P-15 missiles. In addition 12 Pakistani oil storage were burned in flame."

Confidential - The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

"The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier “Eagle” [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov."

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy's advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier "Eagle".

But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.

Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came.

V. Kruglyakov “ I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India”

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

"The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

The war ended with the surrender of Pakistani army as they missed American help due to quick Russians who blocked both America and China from preventing India to advance. With this, a new country named Bangladesh was formed, which was recognized by the whole world and by Pakistan next year on Shimla Agreement.

Sources:
1971 War: How the US tried to corner India (http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm)
Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States by US State Department
December 1971: Indo-Pakistani conflict at sea - IV (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlight/December-1971-Indo-Pakistani-conflict-at-sea---IV.html)
"New Twist In "Crush India" Propaganda Campaign" (http://www.icdc.com/%7Epaulwolf/pakistan/farland26oct1971.htm)
Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis (http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html)

So like I said earlier I just wanted to know what could have happened if the following was happened.

1. So what would have happened if the backup force that was sent from Vladivostok didn't reach on time.

2. Considering the above scenario , If USS Enterprise has made it's way to Dhaka or even some part of then East Pakistan and confronted the Indian Army along with East Pakistan force how could have that altered the course of the war ??

3. If China despite the threat by Russia joined hands with US,Pakistan & Britain , what impact could that have in the regional politics and shaping the modern India ??

I understand this topic might have been discussed gazillion times. But I still want to get different perspective of experts from across the globe :). Thank you.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 12,, 17:17
Hate to tell you this but India and Pakistan were not serious enough for China, USSR, nor the US to commit major combat forces, not when we were staring at WWIII between the USSR and China and NATO was then on the weak end of that confrontation.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 18:14
Hate to tell you this but India and Pakistan were not serious enough for China, USSR, nor the US to commit major combat forces, not when we were staring at WWIII between the USSR and China and NATO was then on the weak end of that confrontation.

But sir, at that time when USA was so worried about the the spreading influence of USSR in the SE Asia. I am sure you know that USSR and India had signed twenty-year Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation in August 1971. And Articles 8, 9, and 10 of the treaty committed the parties "to abstain from providing any assistance to any third party that engages in armed conflict with the other" and "in the event of either party being subjected to an attack or threat thereof . . . to immediately enter into mutual consultations."

So USSR had to honour that which it did during 1971 conflict and sent a significant amount of troops for India's aid and as the article quoted



Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet)

“ I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India”

That shows how committed USSR was. Moreover ,I believe, it must have been more related to their ego and pride. So IMHO USSR and USA would have gone to any length.

1979
19 Mar 12,, 19:28
That shows how committed USSR was. Moreover ,I believe, it must have been more related to their ego and pride. So IMHO USSR and USA would have gone to any length.

Any confrontation at sea between usn and soviet navy in 1971 can end in only one way, the soviets lose badly .

commander
19 Mar 12,, 19:34
Any confrontation at sea between usn and soviet navy in 1971 can end in only one way, the soviets lose badly .

But didn't USSR Navy stopped USN from advancing in the Indian Ocean ??? If USN was so mighty that time despite having biggest aircraft carrier USS Enterprise deployed to the region what did the USN achieve ???

USSWisconsin
19 Mar 12,, 20:04
But didn't USSR Navy stopped USN from advancing in the Indian Ocean ??? If USN was so mighty that time despite having biggest aircraft carrier USS Enterprise deployed to the region what did the USN achieve ???

The USN did what it was ordered to do, the USSR didnt stop them from doing anything. Their orders were from the US gov't and they didn't include going into action. The USN did exactly what it set out to do, deploy in the Indian ocean with a super carrier battle group. Their prescence there made the Soviets refrain from interveening..

Firestorm
19 Mar 12,, 20:20
The USN did what it was ordered to do, the USSR didnt stop them from doing anything. Their orders were from the US gov't and they didn't include going into action. The USN did exactly what it set out to do, deploy in the Indian ocean with a super carrier battle group. Their prescence there made the Soviets refrain from interveening..

So you mean to say that the Enterprise was sent to the Bay Of Bengal to deter the Soviets? There is no evidence to suggest that the soviets were planning on intervening in the war. Apparently soviet submarines might have been shadowing the Enterprise CBG which the Enterprise was aware of. But that was in response to the Enterprise being sent there, not the other way round.

Besides, why would the soviets want to interfere in the first place? They had no ability to shape the ground war, which was going India's way in any case. And the Indian navy was pretty much unchallenged in the east before the Enterprise showed up.

Whatever the Enterprise was there for, it didn't have anything to do with the soviets. It was meant as a pressure tactic to make India agree to a ceasefire before the Pakistanis were routed in the east. It might have been effective had the CBG arrived earlier or the war stretched on for longer.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 20:51
The USN did what it was ordered to do, the USSR didnt stop them from doing anything. Their orders were from the US gov't and they didn't include going into action. The USN did exactly what it set out to do, deploy in the Indian ocean with a super carrier battle group. Their prescence there made the Soviets refrain from interveening..

I am quoting from the article here


The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Here Admiral Dimon Gordon's statements establish that then US President Nixon and Kissinger indeed had intentions to create some damage to the Indian Military or Navy. If not why send such a big fleet to the Indian ocean ?? Just to scare India by doing nothing ??

USSWisconsin
19 Mar 12,, 20:55
From the way I read the article above, the USS Enterprise was sent to influence India and its allies (the Soviets) actions in that conflict, but it was not ordered to intervene - it was a show of strength and resolve - not a combat mission.


it didn't have anything to do with the soviets
Why did the Soviets aim missiles at it?


V. Kruglyakov “ I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India”

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'

USSWisconsin
19 Mar 12,, 21:00
I am quoting from the article here



Here Admiral Dimon Gordon's statements establish that then US President Nixon and Kissinger indeed had intentions to create some damage to the Indian Military or Navy. If not why send such a big fleet to the Indian ocean ?? Just to scare India by doing nothing ??

Sending the fleet isn't doing nothing, and taking no combat actions was what they decided to do given the way the situation developed. Nixon and Kissenger were recorded and their crude laugage was revealed much later.

Firestorm
19 Mar 12,, 21:30
Why did the Soviets aim missiles at it?
Because they believed (just like the Indians did) that the Enterprise was going to attack the Indian Navy. The Enterprise was sent to threaten and pressurize the India and the soviet ships were sent to deter the Enterprise from actually carrying out an attack.

There was no chance of any soviet intervention in the Indo-Pak war unless the US intervened first. The Indian army didn't need any help in East Pakistan and the soviets were in no position to provide any even if it did. The Pakistani navy was pretty much absent in the east.

commander
19 Mar 12,, 21:33
Sending the fleet isn't doing nothing, and taking no combat actions was what they decided to do given the way the situation developed. Nixon and Kissenger were recorded and their crude laugage was revealed much later.

But considering the fact President Nixon was all in to somehow stop the East Pakistan separation I suspect their primary intention was just to station the fleet in the bay of bengal

USSWisconsin
19 Mar 12,, 21:40
What I hear is we are all agreeing on the main points and saying things differently - it was a bunch of posturing and threatening without any follow through on the part of the US and USSR. That is a good thing too. The what if of it was that the USSR and US could have gotten into a war over this, but that didn't happen.

zraver
21 Mar 12,, 20:34
The only way the US would actually have gone to war requires a rewrite beginning in 1968. In the end not much changes vis a vis India and Pakistan.

1968, a US military emboldened by the collapse of the Viet Cong after the 68 catches a couple of lucky breaks in the media at home that ignites the public behind the war for the first time (attack on the embassy supersedes the shooting of the VC spy) and the US begins a massive offensive before the NVA can replace the fallen Viet Cong. This includes the type of air strikes and harbor mining we would see during Operation linebacker By 1970 the war is won and the added US prestige of the victory combined with the Sino-Soviet problems pushes the Soviets to seek a reprisal and North Korean infiltrators hit several US bases in South Korea in early 1971. The raids off a silent war in Korea which is just winding down as the Indians and Pakistanis start to face off again.

The silent war saw raid for raid. The intial NK raid was followed by US air strikes that sank the USS Pueblo as well as several NK warships. The Soviets deployed trying to protect their vassal but quickly found themselves in a box created by several carriers among them Forrestall, Constellation, Ranger, Kitty Hawk and the Big E in what was being called Doodle Station a play on words on the now vacant Yankee station off the coast of Vietnam. At any given time day or night the Soviet flottilla could count 40 or more American war planes in an orbit around their ships. The Soviet counter using November and Echo class subs had failed miserably and one after another 6 Soviet subs had been flogged to the surface with merciless active pinging, none of them reached a US carrier. Rumors also report 2 NK DE subs left port but never returned... The silent war also saw several artillery exchanges and a couple of platoon sized fights inside the DMZ but overall neither side wanted a full scale war.

Boxed in and forced out again the Soviets said they were prepared to back India verses Pakistan but the US no longer had faith in Soviet promises. The force that failed in North Korea was blocked from the BoB by the Kitty Hawk and Forrestall while the Ranger took up station near the Straits of Mallacca. With her flanks guarded the Big E sailed in to the BoB prepared to save East Pakistan and the Constellation was sailing for the Western side of the Sub continent.

This wasn't a bluff, the US was feeling her oats and mission number 1 was sinking the INS Vikrant which was blockading East Pakistan. The Alpha Strike launched by the US would be the Cold War's only real use of US naval air power in its intended role. The Vikrant's Hawker Sea Hawks proved to be no match for the swarm of sparrow missiles the Big E's Phantoms were able to salvo towards them. By the time the A-6 intruders arrived the Indian fighters were either shot down or running for India. The Vikrant and her escorting Frigates managed to down 3 intruders but overall the AAA fire was ineffective due to heavy jamming by the escorting EA-6 Prowlers. The Vikrant took several bomb hits and was set ablaze, also sunk was one of the escorting frigates. When the second strike arrived a few hours later it was called off when the Vikrant was obviously a total loss, down by the stern with her two remaining escorts engaged in obvious rescue operations.

As expected the Soviet forces were not willing to engage the USN in a suicide battle or risk WWIII for India. In New Delhi the atmosphere was tense, did India really want a war with the US? Plans were made to assault Diego Garcia to draw the US navy out of the Bay of Bengal but events passed it up. Despite the US mastery of the seas the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan folded like a house of cards. The air strikes the US could have brought to bear were not going to be heavy enough to stop the lightning advances of the Indian Army and the Constellation was still a few days from being able to deploy when the Pakistani government threw in the towel.

Post war the Indian Navy lost a huge amoutn of prestige and the government decided that the best way to spend military funds was on the air force and army. The extra funding combined with bargain basement prices on Soviet kit allowed the already superior Indian Army to gain an even larger technical advantage over their Pakistani cousins. This when combined with Smiling Bhudda sent the Pakistanis into a tizzy and they began demanding more US arms. However watergate combined with the oil embargo had finally defalted the US sails and the election of Jimmy Carter left Pakistan virtually in the dark and forced them ever more towards China.

For their part, the Soviets abandoned Asia to focus on Africa, Latin America and the Arab states. They never invade Afghanistan, the US had been willing to fight over Pakistan once and the Soviet premier was not willing to risk it again. Instead the Soviets were content to gain back some prestige in Africa, support Saddam against Iran and fund numerous wars and projects in Africa and Latin America which lead to Soviet victories in Nicaragua, Libya, Eithiopia and Somalia.

Blademaster
21 Mar 12,, 20:58
And India would forever see US as an enemy.

USSWisconsin
21 Mar 12,, 21:35
And India would forever see US as an enemy.

IMO, India is a much better friend to the US than Pakistan, I'm very glad it worked out the way it did. That was a generation ago, most people that I know here barely remember this chapter in history - if they remember it at all.

commander
21 Mar 12,, 22:10
IMO, India is a much better friend to the US than Pakistan, I'm very glad it worked out the way it did. That was a generation ago, most people that I know here barely remember this chapter in history - if they remember it at all.

Really.. Ok since you said that YOU think you favor India over Pakistan, so tell me why is still money pumped into Pakistan? I am sure your leaders are aware that money is used to fund terror activities in Indian soil.

We had provided enough evidence for 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai and we are STILL waiting for Pakistan to turn up those who are responsible. When India asked the help of US ( remember when that happened you were still engaged on a 'global war on terror') Why didn't US did nothing next to little to help India ? Not only 26/11 I can put forth many examples and you pretty much would know all that so leaving with just 26/11. Even USA didn't allow access to David Headley for Indian Intelligence agencies which could have helped India.

I can point out many more but considering India-US relations grew stronger in the last decade I haven't taken other issues. So please explain to me the stance of USA in the above issues.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 12,, 22:29
Just because the US is now inviting India to dinner doesn't mean that you're going to trade spit balls anytime soon.

zraver
22 Mar 12,, 00:00
Really.. Ok since you said that YOU think you favor India over Pakistan, so tell me why is still money pumped into Pakistan? I am sure your leaders are aware that money is used to fund terror activities in Indian soil.

We had provided enough evidence for 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai and we are STILL waiting for Pakistan to turn up those who are responsible. When India asked the help of US ( remember when that happened you were still engaged on a 'global war on terror') Why didn't US did nothing next to little to help India ? Not only 26/11 I can put forth many examples and you pretty much would know all that so leaving with just 26/11. Even USA didn't allow access to David Headley for Indian Intelligence agencies which could have helped India.

I can point out many more but considering India-US relations grew stronger in the last decade I haven't taken other issues. So please explain to me the stance of USA in the above issues.

Because ignoring Mumbai kept the supply lines open- period full stop.

commander
22 Mar 12,, 00:06
Just because the US is now inviting India to dinner doesn't mean that you're going to trade spit balls anytime soon.

Sir , I understand USA can't go cold turkey on Pakistan. BUT considering that US has done nothing next to little what can it expect from India ??

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 12,, 00:26
Sir , I understand USA can't go cold turkey on Pakistan. BUT considering that US has done nothing next to little what can it expect from India ??That India can be bought off.

USSWisconsin
22 Mar 12,, 00:41
Really.. Ok since you said that YOU think you favor India over Pakistan, so tell me why is still money pumped into Pakistan? I am sure your leaders are aware that money is used to fund terror activities in Indian soil.

We had provided enough evidence for 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai and we are STILL waiting for Pakistan to turn up those who are responsible. When India asked the help of US ( remember when that happened you were still engaged on a 'global war on terror') Why didn't US did nothing next to little to help India ? Not only 26/11 I can put forth many examples and you pretty much would know all that so leaving with just 26/11. Even USA didn't allow access to David Headley for Indian Intelligence agencies which could have helped India.

I can point out many more but considering India-US relations grew stronger in the last decade I haven't taken other issues. So please explain to me the stance of USA in the above issues.

You are correct, my personal sympathys and respect are with India, not Pakistan - based on my personal experience - I work with Indians everyday, and have many friends there. I know there are good people in Pakistan too, but I have worked some there who aren't any good at all. The Americans I know are not pleased about the support for Pakistan, especially since bin Laden was found there. We don't control our leaders like you might think, big money does, lobbists and other special interests have a much bigger say in our politics than the myth's suggest. I vote in every election, and everyone I have voted for has let me down, as have the ones I didn't vote for - I am no fan of politicians.

payeng
22 Mar 12,, 07:31
From the way I read the article above, the USS Enterprise was sent to influence India and its allies (the Soviets) actions in that conflict, but it was not ordered to intervene - it was a show of strength and resolve - not a combat mission.


Why did the Soviets aim missiles at it?

I think it was the Soviet intervention during the 71 war at the request of Mrs. Gandhi that have brought India close to USSR, the Soviet VETO in favour of India, sending warships towards Indian ocean to assist Indian objectives which I think by that time even the armed forces of India was not aware of, it is said that the cordial relationship between India and USSR started from the event of 1971, so the Soviets were neither Allies during the war nor latter, being an ally of the cold war was considered as a luxury for developing India which the nation cannot effort to.

As we were discussing in some other thread about a probable Indian attack upon DG, it is learned that the armed forces of India was aware that an US task force was advancing towards BoB, but was not aware of the Soviet intervention as they were not informed by Mrs. Gandhi, such an attempt might be a defence force preparation to divert the BigE from BoB. And when Mrs. Gandhi received the confirmation about the assistance that USSR have sent, the operation was not initiated.

The DG story might be a plan B in case no soviet assistance arrives.

payeng
22 Mar 12,, 08:05
Really.. Ok since you said that YOU think you favor India over Pakistan, so tell me why is still money pumped into Pakistan? I am sure your leaders are aware that money is used to fund terror activities in Indian soil.

We had provided enough evidence for 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai and we are STILL waiting for Pakistan to turn up those who are responsible. When India asked the help of US ( remember when that happened you were still engaged on a 'global war on terror') Why didn't US did nothing next to little to help India ? Not only 26/11 I can put forth many examples and you pretty much would know all that so leaving with just 26/11. Even USA didn't allow access to David Headley for Indian Intelligence agencies which could have helped India.

I can point out many more but considering India-US relations grew stronger in the last decade I haven't taken other issues. So please explain to me the stance of USA in the above issues.

Relationship should be based on give-n-take basis, where both side benefits, US can't be the helper all time, she have her own interest and policies,so does India. Recent India-Israel relations in an example where Interest of both nations resulted in a cordial relationship.

Deltacamelately
22 Mar 12,, 13:19
Where does the thread talk of confrontation between the US Army and the Indian Army?
Where does the question of the US Army's involvement arise?

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 12,, 15:09
It's a non-starter. Maybe the Chinese can spare a couple of divisions (doubtful looking at what the Soviets were doing up north) but, as the Maj AR put it, the only two US divisions who could have came in on time (the 101st and the 82nd) and both were busy in Vietnam.

zraver
24 Mar 12,, 03:49
The colonel has it, air and naval power was all the US had to hand if she was wanting to fight for Pakistan. Even if she had been, Pakistan's Operation Assholes and Elbows meant the war was over before the US could act.

zraver
24 Mar 12,, 05:25
Had the USSR survived and the Cold war still been going in 2000 the correlation of forces would be even more out of balance than it was in 1990. Firs tin the air the US would have a much larger fleet of B-2 bombers and the planned purchase of the F-22 would be 1000+

At sea where the changes are fewest the Sea Wolf class submarine would still be in production.

On the ground the M1A2 would have had higher production numbers, the crusader would not have been cancelled, the Comanche would have seen life.

Against this the Soviets would still be a generation behind in the air. The T-90 no matter how good firepower wise would not have French Thermals and the Red Army would still be using an ineffective 2 year conscription that kept institutional memory low.

Stitch
24 Mar 12,, 05:40
CoE and Z nailed it; there were pretty much NO US ground forces available for anything in 1971. Vietnam was still two years away from winding down, and a majority of our air conventional assets were commited to Arc Light strikes there (everything else was nuclear-oriented). We DID have ground forces stationed in West Germany, but they weren't going anywhere until the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years later. That pretty much leaves Naval forces, which were also heavily commited in VN for tactical strike and CSAR missions. Not much left in the way of US assets for an intervention in Pakistan . . . . . .

Blademaster
24 Mar 12,, 17:31
Had the USSR survived and the Cold war still been going in 2000 the correlation of forces would be even more out of balance than it was in 1990. Firs tin the air the US would have a much larger fleet of B-2 bombers and the planned purchase of the F-22 would be 1000+

At sea where the changes are fewest the Sea Wolf class submarine would still be in production.

On the ground the M1A2 would have had higher production numbers, the crusader would not have been cancelled, the Comanche would have seen life.

Against this the Soviets would still be a generation behind in the air. The T-90 no matter how good firepower wise would not have French Thermals and the Red Army would still be using an ineffective 2 year conscription that kept institutional memory low.

And the US would have been bankrupted faster than the Soviets.

zraver
24 Mar 12,, 20:17
And the US would have been bankrupted faster than the Soviets.

Posted that in the wrong thread but no. The US economy was growing fast enough to keep pace.

AdityaMookerjee
09 May 12,, 12:20
The U. S. A. would never have attacked India, because India is a democracy. The U. S. S. Enterprise was in the Bay of Bengal, and ships carrying Pakistani men and materiel, were being sunk there, by Indian submarines.

Shek
09 May 12,, 14:19
No. The USSR was already crumbling from within in '88 and the US was nearing a period of record prosperity. Oil is the only thing that has kept the Russian economy afloat.

USSWisconsin
10 May 12,, 13:41
I see a spooky parallel to the WWI what if scenario about Britain attacking the US to prevent them from siding with the Kaiser - it was a terrible prospect, one that would have changed the way the world evolved. Had the US naval forces gotten involved in fighting the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, imagine how different (and probably not in a good way) that things might be today. I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed in that potential tinderbox situation. It appears to me that the worst international problem in the Indian Ocean today is a few raggedy pirates, and they are a matter that is easily handled by a few frigates or destroyers - and even that is overkill (a 25mm deck gun and/or ten armed men on some of the merchant ships might be enough to handle that).

S2
10 May 12,, 14:50
I STRONGLY question any suggestion that America harbored any inclination whatsoever to engage in combat alongside the Pakistani military against India. Sheer speculative nonsense.

Blademaster's comment regarding our economy underscores his total misunderstanding of how, exactly, we beat the Soviet empire. Aside from the various societal internal contradictions, long predicted and finally rearing their ugly heads among the citizenry behind the iron curtain, we'd considerably raised the ante required by the Soviet Union to, again, attain conventional force superiority. The Soviet Union had missed their window of opportunity available in the late-sixties to late seventies. By 1980 that door was closing. By 1985 it was shut and by 1990 we held conventional force dominance within the European theatre of operations.

The cost to the Soviet Union for regaining overwhelming conventional military power in Europe was thoroughly unsustainable given their prevailing economic model. It was manifestly evident to their leadership that they had FAILED.

1979
10 May 12,, 15:40
The U. S. A. would never have attacked India, because India is a democracy.

and we all know that democracies never fight each other ...

Deltacamelately
10 May 12,, 16:27
The U. S. A. would never have attacked India, because India is a democracy. The U. S. S. Enterprise was in the Bay of Bengal, and ships carrying Pakistani men and materiel, were being sunk there, by Indian submarines.

and we all know that democracies never fight each other ...
Sir,

Except for us two demo<crazies>. India and Pakistan.;)

On a side note: I'm happy that the US didn't engage in actual combat and colonize the Indian mainland. Otherwise Nixon, the genius that he was, would have definitely resettled all his Red Indians in India and gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. Indians(red) back to India.:eek::Dancing-Banana:

astralis
10 May 12,, 18:58
S2,


Aside from the various societal internal contradictions

we'll make you a proper maoist yet!

Shek
11 May 12,, 01:04
and we all know that democracies never fight each other ...

I'm assuming that your "..." implies sarcasm with which I'd agree with. There are several case studies that demonstrate that democracies are plenty willing to go to war with each other.

S2
11 May 12,, 02:27
"we'll make you a proper maoist yet!"

Only if I get to walk around and, sorta, ummm...you know,

bust a move when the mood strikes

29171

Bigfella
11 May 12,, 05:08
"we'll make you a proper maoist yet!"

Only if I get to walk around and, sorta, ummm...you know,

bust a move when the mood strikes

29171

If Astralis can produce a stirring poster involving a heroic pose, the Little Red Book and a good fly fishing rod will that tip you over the edge? :biggrin:

zraver
11 May 12,, 05:48
and we all know that democracies never fight each other ...

Have two mature democracies ever engaged in a war (more than 1000 dead)?

1979
11 May 12,, 09:06
probably since the begining , rome vs chartage for instance.

zraver
11 May 12,, 10:22
probably since the begining , rome vs chartage for instance.

Neither was a democratic state as both severely restricted citizenship and suffrage. Greek city-states are not full states and even Athens severely limited citizenship.

1979
11 May 12,, 12:00
Neither was a democratic state as both severely restricted citizenship and suffrage. Greek city-states are not full states and even Athens severely limited citizenship.

like women and slaves ? then i guess we have to discount all states until the 19th century.

Deltacamelately
11 May 12,, 13:02
Have two mature democracies ever engaged in a war (more than 1000 dead)?
More than once I would say.

In our case, we went against Pakistan thrice.

1948 under Jinnah.
1965 under Bhutto.
1999 under Nawaz Sharif.

More than a 1000 deaths each time. The bolded part might be a little tricky on the part of the Pakistanis. ;)

Firestorm
12 May 12,, 00:45
^^Sir, Bhutto was only the Foreign Minister in 1965 and Ayub Khan can't be called a democratic leader. In 1971 too, Pakistan was pretty much a military dictatorship with Nixon's favorite, Yahya as the grand poobah.

1948 and 1999 I guess were the only times India and Pakistan went to war as democracies.

Shek
12 May 12,, 14:21
Have two mature democracies ever engaged in a war (more than 1000 dead)?

Your question that follows from the earlier proposition that democracies don't fight one another is actually the wrong question to pose if you wish to test that democracies don't fight one another because they are democracies. It's the difference between correlation and causation. Once you ask the correct question, then you can start to test a meaningful hypothesis and you find that the hypothesis fails, which has a huge impact on what policies should be prescribed.

http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/clarke/204/Layne94.pdf

zraver
13 May 12,, 22:33
Your question that follows from the earlier proposition that democracies don't fight one another is actually the wrong question to pose if you wish to test that democracies don't fight one another because they are democracies. It's the difference between correlation and causation. Once you ask the correct question, then you can start to test a meaningful hypothesis and you find that the hypothesis fails, which has a huge impact on what policies should be prescribed.

http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/clarke/204/Layne94.pdf

That paper is deeply flawed, first off it states that public opinion and economic factors to be legit deterrents to war in the DPT must hold for all wars or risk of war situations be democracies ignoring the theories own claims that competing political systems change the dynamic of how public perception works. Without showing that in fact public perception and economic considerations do not change as regards conflicts with democratic vs non-democratic political system the rest of the paper is confounded.

In the papers first example despite the papers ow clear assertion that war between the US and UK would lead to a political defeat for Lincoln (dissolution of the Union leading to non-reelection) the paper claims it was a realist approach that averted the crisis.

In the second the paper clearly indicates that the UK picked the US as the enemy it least wanted given the state of affairs in the world in 1896. Why did the UK pick the US to mollify with the resulting loss of influence in the New World? Why not pick Germany and punish the US? This is DPT's claims of natural attraction at work.

And so goes it in examples 3 and 4.

sunny_10
13 May 12,, 22:34
Your question that follows from the earlier proposition that democracies don't fight one another is actually the wrong question to pose if you wish to test that democracies don't fight one another because they are democracies. It's the difference between correlation and causation. Once you ask the correct question, then you can start to test a meaningful hypothesis and you find that the hypothesis fails, which has a huge impact on what policies should be prescribed.

http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/clarke/204/Layne94.pdf

Sir, many times I tried to say that only those would be allowed to participate in any talk who are qualified enough to discuss the different issues. I mean, whenever we talk to those who arent in that particular profession, they are generally lost with few basic things and arent capable enough to deal with those technical/ basic terms which are required to discuss any topic. Its not just engineering or medicines but politics also, a level of education is first required before discussing the issues.

Those people who talk about ‘democracy’ and then friendship between India and US must understand that even if communist rule China, the conflicts between India and China in South China Sea is not because Chinese communists are trying for their own pockets and Indian democratic champions are trying for democratic people. I remember, about 2 years before, US refused to apologize to Japan for nuclear attack and they demanded that Japan would also first apologize for their attack on Pearl Harbor and then only US will apologize to Japan for their nuclear attack. Then the reason is, even today, US’s rulers know that nuclear bombs were dropped on the Japanese civilians and the people killed in Pearl Harbor were Americans. And we also know that Japanese troops didn’t surrend by the first nuclear attack but after the second one nuclear bomb dropped on another Japanese city after just 3 days which then gave a clear sense to the Japanese troops employed on the border that if they don’t surrender, US may drop many more nuclear bombs and kill all the Japanese civilians walking on the streets Japaneseof . And then Japanese troops surrendered for the safety of Japanese people from Western democracy.

Have a look on the deeds of Western Democracy over Pakistan. We know that Pakistan is full of militants but in hunt of just 2-3 Taliban fighters, their drone drop bombs on 20-30 Pakistani civilians while they have put a price tag of $50mil if Pakistan side will score any American/Western national. Just have a look on the pictures of the people who are killed in drone attack, will US/NATO will do the same with their western people in hunt of 2-3 militants? Certainly not……… Western democracy knows that their drone drop bombs on the people of democratic Pakistan, not of any Western democratic nation.

A government agency of a country knows that they work for those people who elected that certain government for whom they work for and if anything happens to any civilian of NATO’s countries, their rulers will have to pay for that as their voters will then punish them in election. But when CIA/MI6 conduct any operation in any other ‘democratic’ country, they know that people of those certain countries don’t vote for the governments of US/UK and their rulers are not responsible for the nationals other than of US/ UK. Have a look on Japan, they generally try to change history of the deed of their military with Chinese women as they know it will damage image of the ‘identity’ of being Japanese, theyand their people are concerned with. Do you think Turkey is not a democratic country and has enough reasons to be qualified with its membership with EU? They simply won’t get EU’s membership as they are Muslims, regardless democratic or not. Similarly, do you think democratic Saudi Arabia will allow all the muslims to come to Saudi Arabia to share with their resources, simply not as those natural resources belong to those who born there, not to other nationals of other ‘democratic’ countries.

US, UK, Australia, Canada type countries are multi cultural countries because they have no skills by themselves and they want foreign investments also so they provide high skill and business visas to other nationals who may help them have enough skills and business in US, UK, Australia, Canada type countries. But just talk to the migrants of these western countries, you have to demonstrate that you hate your native countries otherwise you will face usual discriminations there. If you try to prove your native country superior to any Western nation, you may have a bad experience from their locals.

Its not just about the identities of different cultures/ nationals, but also Power Structure established by the Western Democracy believes in a certain ‘grading’ of people. Which states American/ Western European on top, Russian/ South American in middle, Chinese/ Indian next and African on bottom, something like this and their governments just try to maintain this ‘grading’, along with organising different cultural/ identity wars also. all these countries are democratic countries but their people are different with different identities, cultures, grading etc. and for Western Champions, they find two cultures either kill each other or enslave each other, diffenrent identities either fight with each other or surrender to their opponents. racial superiority is main whether the migrants are highly qualified and locals just underhigh school pass.

Hence, US didnt attack India in 1971 because simply they were not capable enough to resist India+Russia that time, to protect interests of another democratic country Pakistan which was friendly with US/West. two democratic countries, India and Pakistan fought for the interests of their nationals and another 'democratic' country, the US/UK, couldnt help democratic Pakistan simply because they were not capable to fight with India+Russia. thats it..........

S2
14 May 12,, 02:33
"Sir, many times I tried to say that only those would be allowed to participate in any talk who are qualified enough to discuss the different issues..."

Follow your own advice. STFU. Read more. Write less.

We'll all be better for it.:mad:

Double Edge
14 May 12,, 03:01
Have two mature democracies ever engaged in a war (more than 1000 dead)?
List of wars between democracies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies)

mature ? a democracy is a democracy

Doktor
14 May 12,, 05:40
DE,

If you look at that list it is so (in lack of a better term) flawed, it includes rebellions, civil war, wars where one of the sides is democracy on paper only, ending with wars that were actually incidents (without declaration of war).

sunny_10
14 May 12,, 07:22
Any confrontation at sea between usn and soviet navy in 1971 can end in only one way, the soviets lose badly .

Sir war case scenario is very different, its much more than counting the number of arms of the opposite sides. Even if US may put 4 aircraft carriers in Indian ocean, they cant guarantee for their supply lines for longer in a different region. And if one of the aircraft carrier get caught with 40-50 different small naval boats, and even if one of these naval boats may get success in making a level of damage to that certain aircraft carrier, no aircraft from that AC may take off for a while and Indian navy may then sink that AC within next few hours.

Please read this news as below, how 2 Mig21s, 2.5 gen aircrafts, could destroy such an expansive aircraft of Pakistan when it had come just few km inside Indian Territory. It was just about the war tactics of 2nd gen Mig21 aircrafts against such an expansive and high tech Pakistan’s aircraft


The Atlantique Incident was an event in which a Pakistan Navy's Naval Air Arm Breguet Atlantique patrol plane, carrying 16 people on board, was shot down by the Indian Air Force for alleged violation of airspace. The episode took place in the Rann of Kutch on August 10, 1999, just a month after the Kargil War, creating a tense atmosphere between India and Pakistan.

Foreign diplomats noted that the plane fell inside Pakistani territory, although it may have crossed the border. However, they also believe that India's reaction was unjustified.[3] Pakistan later lodged a compensation claim at the International Court of Justice, accusing India for the incident, but the court dismissed the case, ruling that the court had no jurisdiction in this matter.[4][5][

Atlantique Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantique_Incident)

The key finding of this article of the thread is as below. Here we can see that US+Britain had known that they had reached a level in 1971 that they had only two option, either fight with India+Russia and then run from the Indian ocean, or, they would simply run from that region without fighting, and the best option they chosen that time.


Hearing this, on December 9, Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. The plan was to Surround India from all four sides and force them to retreat and leave East Pakistan.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.' China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Believing India can win the war and Indira Gandhi being determined to protect the interest of Bengalis, Soviet Union vetoed out the resolution thus letting India fight for the cause. Nixon and Kissinger pressurized Soviets to a very extent but luck did not support them.

"The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier “Eagle” [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov."

But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok

He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

The war ended with the surrender of Pakistani army as they missed American help due to quick Russians who blocked both America and China from preventing India to advance.

1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis (http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html)

1979
14 May 12,, 08:03
would you like me to post a image of the Breguet Atlantique to see for yourself what a " expansive and high tech Pakistan’s aircraft " it is ?

sunny_10
14 May 12,, 09:34
would you like me to post a image of the Breguet Atlantique to see for yourself what a " expansive and high tech Pakistan’s aircraft " it is ?
here we have its picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breguet.atlantic.6112.arp.jpg

Sir I understand what you mean to say. Mig21s were the combat aircrafts and Breguet Atlantic was a reconnaissance aircraft which is used for anti-submarine operations also. But sir, what I meant to say in my last post is, first Mig21s were hardly 2nd gen aircrafts, having limited range/ limited speed with all the old techs of 60s which was for ‘interceptor’ purpose only in Indian Air Force while that Atlantic was a front line aircraft for reconnaissance and anti-submarine operations for NATO countries and Pakistan got one from them. But here, just imagine a case when a Mirage-3/5 of Pakistan, same like Mig21, would shoot down your $400mil worth P8I with all the new techs, P8I is also similar to Atlantic? I mean, ‘military purpose’ aircrafts have all those techs which may help them having full information about any incoming aircraft/ missile and they have enough tactics to defend themselves when they enter in another country’s territory. But if 2 Mig21s could score that big fish then, certainly they might have adopted the right approach to shoot it down?
Breguet Atlantic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Atlantique)

I remember, I was in India and saw on TV that time that first one Mig21 came in the range to that Atlantic aircraft who had entered in Indian territory and the another Mig21, (I forgot name of that pilot of Mig21), was waiting on that 'expected' way from where that Atlantic aircraft could run back to Pakistan. First Mig21 had engaged that Atlantic aircraft in a way that it didn’t let that Atlantic to think for the second Mig21 waiting for it at the right place with right position……….

sunny_10
14 May 12,, 09:35
[QUOTE=sunny_10;872170]here we have its picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Breguet.atlantic.6112.arp.jpg

1979
14 May 12,, 10:18
you got to kidding ,
that aircraft is slower than civilian airliner , the advantage a mach 2 aircraft has is so big that it's not even a fair sport .

Double Edge
14 May 12,, 13:57
If you look at that list it is so (in lack of a better term) flawed, it includes rebellions, civil war, wars where one of the sides is democracy on paper only, ending with wars that were actually incidents (without declaration of war).
So the question is which in the list qualifies ?


First Balkan War (1912–13). The Young Turks had re-established constitutional government in Ottoman Turkey in 1908,and continued to struggle for greater liberalization; the "relatively democratic" Constitution of Serbia had been restored in 1903, and attained complete openness of executive recruitment. Serbia and its allies, the constitutional monarchies of Greece and Bulgaria, won the war; Turkey suffered a military coup as a result of defeat


Turkish invasion of Cyprus. An attack by the new democracy in Turkey, since 1973; Cyprus had been a constitutional democracy, although one with severe intercommunal problems, since independence in 1958; the Turkish invasion was a response to a coup. The democratic order of the Republic of Cyprus was restored three days after the invasion, and the war continued for another month. Page Fortna regards this as a debatable case of dual democracy

India's war with Pakistan in '48 does not qualify because Pakistan was not a real democracy at the time. Pakistan got its first constitution in '56 which was short lived. At the time of the '48 war their constitution was the government of India act 1935. Pakistan's civilian govt from '47 onwards was more like a political office with no real power. This is a common trend in muslim countries before a military coup takes over.

Kargil in '99 does not count because it was not a war in the real sense, more like a response to an incursion. A border clash.

Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

An act of war is an act of war.

Doktor
14 May 12,, 14:31
So the question is which in the list qualifies ?

Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

An act of war is an act of war.

I really loved this one. No casualties, no declaration of war, but still there: Turbot War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War) (The Col or another proud Canadian might prove me wrong)

zraver
15 May 12,, 04:51
Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

Because that is the international standard for classifying armed conflict as a war.

War is defined as an armed challenge to a nation state that has at least 1000 battle deaths.

Shek
15 May 12,, 11:22
Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

The Correlates of War is probably the most well known database that codes data about wars - they define 1000 battle deaths as the floor to be part of their database.

http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%20Data/WarData_NEW/COW%20Website%20-%20Typology%20of%20war.pdf

Shek
15 May 12,, 11:42
That paper is deeply flawed, first off it states that public opinion and economic factors to be legit deterrents to war in the DPT must hold for all wars or risk of war situations be democracies ignoring the theories own claims that competing political systems change the dynamic of how public perception works. Without showing that in fact public perception and economic considerations do not change as regards conflicts with democratic vs non-democratic political system the rest of the paper is confounded.

Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying, although I think you've placed things backwards in your logic chain and it's throwing you off. DPT holds that public opinion will prevent a democracy from going to war with another democracy. The people do not wish for war, as it is their own blood and treasure to be used as payment. Yet, in the Trent affair, the people wanted war, and they wanted it against the UK. Rather than public opinion holding back and urging caution, it was urging action, and action now.

Second, your second statement that I quoted indicates that you see DPT as DOA.


In the papers first example despite the papers ow clear assertion that war between the US and UK would lead to a political defeat for Lincoln (dissolution of the Union leading to non-reelection) the paper claims it was a realist approach that averted the crisis.

How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .

zraver
16 May 12,, 06:25
Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying,

I am saying the paper confounds itself. If economic concerns will keep a democracy out of war, those concerns must be present in all wars even against non-democracies. Obviously they are not since democracies are slightly more warlike. Ditto for public pressure.

A second problem is the paper claims [at then] current public opinion is the public opinion that politicians look at which out considering if this is true or not or if the politicians are looking at expected future public opinion at the ballot box. It also either ignores or does not acknowledge the quiet voices of democracy that often hold sway- the industrialists, jurist and publicist who whisper to those in power and are often the loudest voices of all.

It makes these omissions of relevant factors again and again and as a result cannot disprove DPT becuase it does not honestly look at the processes that lead to a democracy going to war. It also assumes that the decsion for war is made in the instant rather than through deliberation this is important because the cry for war one day can be replaced by the hope for peace the next especially among those who have the biggest amounts of skin in the game



How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .

Because other primary source documents show the primacy of political considerations for Lincoln and his cabinet. The paper does not like to consider known factors outside of the very narrow criteria if wants to use to advance an agenda. Knowing Lincoln was a politician before he was a statesman the affect his actions would have on his continued politcal career MUST be considered. A war with the UK which the US could not win and which would split the union would end Lincoln's career.

Deltacamelately
16 May 12,, 12:23
Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying, although I think you've placed things backwards in your logic chain and it's throwing you off. DPT holds that public opinion will prevent a democracy from going to war with another democracy. The people do not wish for war, as it is their own blood and treasure to be used as payment. Yet, in the Trent affair, the people wanted war, and they wanted it against the UK. Rather than public opinion holding back and urging caution, it was urging action, and action now.

Second, your second statement that I quoted indicates that you see DPT as DOA.



How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .
Shek,

I remember the Indian public going mad wanting war against Pakistan after both, the attack on the Parliament, as well as the Mumbai attack.

Double Edge
16 May 12,, 15:26
I remember the Indian public going mad wanting war against Pakistan after both, the attack on the Parliament, as well as the Mumbai attack.
Parliament attack in 2001 was when Musharraf was in charge so that is out.

Mumbai '08 however was when they had a civilian administration.

Now DPT says there have to be 1000 deaths and it needs to be a war. Not a terrorist attack.

Which is a point to raise here, what does DPT have to say about terrorism ?

An attack that managed to kill thousands could very well serve as a cassus belli to go to war. Like 9-11.

Shek
17 May 12,, 16:57
Z,

A quick synopsis I think will put the right questions back into focus, as the conversation has posed some questions that conflate what questions should be posed.

DPT can be traced back to Kant and his writing Perpetual Peace. Michael Doyle's articles on DPT is what's popularized the theory within IR circles (with some work prior). I posted Layne's rebuttal, which is one of the seminal rebuttal pieces. His approach is very fair, as any prediction that democracies do not fight one another without any other causal mechanism defined implicitly define democracy as then being the cause. Thus, Layne looks at the causal mechanism developed by Doyle to test whether the correlative results of no democracy on democracy war correspond to the proposed causal chain. In other words, he doesn't have provide another theory - he only has to falsify Doyle's causal chain to falsify the theory.

Also, when you talk about how Layne has to account for special interests, he doesn't, since DPT doesn't propose special interests as part of the causal chain. In fact, special interests provide another reason that DPT is a failure. Thus, you are arguing against yourself since you originally argued for DPT ;)

As for your discussion about current vs. future, I don't disagree that politicians take both into account. However, I'd love to see the primary source material that you are citing WRT the Trent Affair, as in all of my readings of the affair, I have yet to come across any primary source material where Lincoln cites the election that is 35 months away as being the reason for his decision. In fact, the sum of the evidence is that Lincoln would have much rather won the Civil War at the cost of re-election as opposed to win re-election without winning the Civil War. Thus, I find your argument a stretch at best that the decision hinged on the future election rather than the bigger question of winning the Civil War. In fact, the end response was originally designed by Seward, who didn't necessarily have much skin in the game for the election of 1864, as well as by Adams, who also didn't have skin in the game.

zraver
18 May 12,, 08:42
Z,

A quick synopsis I think will put the right questions back into focus, as the conversation has posed some questions that conflate what questions should be posed.

DPT can be traced back to Kant and his writing Perpetual Peace. Michael Doyle's articles on DPT is what's popularized the theory within IR circles (with some work prior). I posted Layne's rebuttal, which is one of the seminal rebuttal pieces. His approach is very fair, as any prediction that democracies do not fight one another without any other causal mechanism defined implicitly define democracy as then being the cause. Thus, Layne looks at the causal mechanism developed by Doyle to test whether the correlative results of no democracy on democracy war correspond to the proposed causal chain. In other words, he doesn't have provide another theory - he only has to falsify Doyle's causal chain to falsify the theory.

All that does it put into question why democracies don't fight. The Church had a theory that the Earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus said it was a Heliocentric universe. It turns out that Copernicus model was faulty even though his claim was right; he didn't account for an ecliptic orbit so his model was off.


We have observed that mature democracies do not fight- not a single instance of it.


Also, when you talk about how Layne has to account for special interests, he doesn't, since DPT doesn't propose special interests as part of the causal chain.

Actually DPT does... You can choose to see all voters as equal, but we know that some voters votes/voice are worth more than others. The poor man votes once at the ballot box, the rich man votes twice with his checkbook and the ballot box.


In fact, special interests provide another reason that DPT is a failure. Thus, you are arguing against yourself since you originally argued for DPT ;)

Special interests argue for DPT not against since they are collections and alliances of citizen voices.


As for your discussion about current vs. future, I don't disagree that politicians take both into account. However, I'd love to see the primary source material that you are citing WRT the Trent Affair, as in all of my readings of the affair, I have yet to come across any primary source material where Lincoln cites the election that is 35 months away as being the reason for his decision.

Rather than direct reference look to implied considerations. In this case look at the American reply to the British demands which won for the US a strategic victory (though never needed) about the rights of neutrals. This reply was drafted because Lincoln was unable to come up with any arguments to refute Slidells points and had conceded that a 2 front war would be the death of the union. Lincoln may have talked about being willing to step down to preserve the Union, but he didn't, he knew his election would mean war and he stayed in the race. However, having caused a war and then lost the union he would most definitely be a one term president in he wasn't impeached. This has to be considered.



I find your argument a stretch at best that the decision hinged on the future election rather than the bigger question of winning the Civil War.

see above, my point is that winning or losing the war also entailed winning or losing the election. Lincoln having chosen war to gain office could only keep that office by winning the war.

As for Slidell and Adams, both had skin in the game as part of the cabinet. The fact that there were two sets of democratic process at work meant the chances for a peaceful outcome according to the processes outlined in DPT and generally applicable to avoiding war in general were doubled.

Nor were the British out for war, in which case they would have attacked, as Lord Russell told Palmerston, “I am still inclined to think Lincoln will submit, but not till the clock is 59 minutes past 11.” Lyon's echoed these sentiments saying, “I was sure from the first day that they would give in, if it were possible to convince them that war was really the only alternative.” The British may not have been bluffing, but neither did they seriously suspect war was brewing. In fact it appears that chest thumping aside, the Trent Affair is a good example of why the core truth espoused by DPT seems to hold true- democracies at odds with one another will find a solution short of war.

Shek
18 May 12,, 14:20
All that does it put into question why democracies don't fight. The Church had a theory that the Earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus said it was a Heliocentric universe. It turns out that Copernicus model was faulty even though his claim was right; he didn't account for an ecliptic orbit so his model was off.

We have observed that mature democracies do not fight- not a single instance of it.

Nice story, but it misses the mark. At issue here is correlation vs. causation.

Your observation suffers as evidence as it only provides correlation, and even at that, it's weak. Democracy is a newcomer to the nation-state, really only building its number after WWII. Thus, you have both a very short historical period to build a case and a small number of observations. Then you have to disintangle other causal factors from the form of government - is it Cold War balancing that prevented conflict, regional influence that prevented conflict, geography and resources (or lack there off), net assessment between two potential adversaries (e.g., the US has a lot of resources, but it's not worth fighting us).

Even after you untangle that mess of causal mechanisms, you then have to avoid selection bias, and specifically, survivorship bias by looking at all potential conflicts and see if DPT actually explains the prevention of conflict.


Actually DPT does... You can choose to see all voters as equal, but we know that some voters votes/voice are worth more than others. The poor man votes once at the ballot box, the rich man votes twice with his checkbook and the ballot box.

Special interests argue for DPT not against since they are collections and alliances of citizen voices.

I was able to finally find a strain that voices interest groups (and not someone whispering in the prince's ear) as a causal mechanism. However, your proposition is wrong - special interest groups only provide a mechanism and do not argue for DPT - they can either cause or prevent war depending on the interest and its influence. As an example, the military-industrial complex is oft-cited as being a cause of war.


Rather than direct reference look to implied considerations. In this case look at the American reply to the British demands which won for the US a strategic victory (though never needed) about the rights of neutrals. This reply was drafted because Lincoln was unable to come up with any arguments to refute Slidells points and had conceded that a 2 front war would be the death of the union. Lincoln may have talked about being willing to step down to preserve the Union, but he didn't, he knew his election would mean war and he stayed in the race. However, having caused a war and then lost the union he would most definitely be a one term president in he wasn't impeached. This has to be considered.

see above, my point is that winning or losing the war also entailed winning or losing the election. Lincoln having chosen war to gain office could only keep that office by winning the war.

Occam's Razor applies. Instead of contorted to justify a decision primarily on an event 35 months in the future and ignore the fact that the primary source record doesn't record any discussion of the 1864 election and that such a decision runs counter to the body of evidence on Lincoln's thinking and statements, go with what the evidence shows: Lincoln made decisions based on the outcome of preserving the Union, not because his (non-existent) pollsters told him of the decision's impact on the 1864 election.


As for Slidell and Adams, both had skin in the game as part of the cabinet. The fact that there were two sets of democratic process at work meant the chances for a peaceful outcome according to the processes outlined in DPT and generally applicable to avoiding war in general were doubled.

Slidell did indeed have skin in the game . . . as one of the Confederates detained by the Union. As for Adams, he wasn't a cabinet member.


Nor were the British out for war, in which case they would have attacked, as Lord Russell told Palmerston, “I am still inclined to think Lincoln will submit, but not till the clock is 59 minutes past 11.” Lyon's echoed these sentiments saying, “I was sure from the first day that they would give in, if it were possible to convince them that war was really the only alternative.” The British may not have been bluffing, but neither did they seriously suspect war was brewing. In fact it appears that chest thumping aside, the Trent Affair is a good example of why the core truth espoused by DPT seems to hold true- democracies at odds with one another will find a solution short of war.

No, it doesn't support DPT. The British public wanted war.

Albany Rifles
18 May 12,, 15:30
Z,

Your posit on Lincoln looking to the 1864 election as his primary motivationin his actions for the Trent Affair flies in the face of over 10,000 volumes of scholarship. If there was any election he was looking at it would have been the 1862 midterms, not the general in 1864.

DR Charles Hubbard in his excellent Burdens of Confederate Diplomacy probably had the best analysis on the entire Trent Affair....a) it validated the rights of neutrals on the high seas in international law; b) The causus beli for GB fell apart once the US revealed that Wilkes operated without orders...also France stated they would remain neutral in any dispute between the US & GB; c) showed the Europeans that US would defend itself in international matters even if the country was focused on a civil war and d) showed the Europeans that a strictly maintained neutrality on the parts of the GB & France would keep the US from doing anything about Canada and Mexico.

And lets not forget that the spectre of Prince Wheat and King Cod also had an impact on the Europeans. War with the US would cripple markets and economies in both hemispheres and lead to unrest in populations dependent on American foodstuffs.

And once the Emanciaption Proclamation was made any hope for a recognition for the Confederacy.

Shek
18 May 12,, 16:12
\And lets not forget that the spectre of Prince Wheat and King Cod also had an impact on the Europeans.

Don't mess with my fish and chips!

Albany Rifles
18 May 12,, 17:02
Don't mess with my fish and chips!

Damn Skippy!!!!

astralis
18 May 12,, 17:31
AR,

this is secondary to the argument at hand, but wanted to look at this issue.


War with the US would cripple markets and economies in both hemispheres and lead to unrest in populations dependent on American foodstuffs.


it would have been bad for the UK but an utter disaster for the US.

most finance and banking was done in the UK during this period. without london money the US war effort falls apart almost immediately. the inflation which the CSA experienced between 1862-1865 would have been magnified to an even greater extent-- especially as the Royal Navy begins to take apart the USN and starts a blockade. hyperinflation vice the inflation we actually got.

the union blockade of the south would have been broken, and the southern armies would probably be flooded with british/french arms.

but most likely the US capitulates before this or the UK food supply becomes an issue. also see what napoleon the third did: he told the UK, nervous about french intentions in a possible UK-US war, that he would back the UK.

lincoln was very keenly aware that there was no way the US could successfully take on the UK and france in addition to the confederates. he actually worked against the popular sentiment at the time, which was jingoistic to the extreme.

Shek
18 May 12,, 19:08
most finance and banking was done in the UK during this period. without london money the US war effort falls apart almost immediately. the inflation which the CSA experienced between 1862-1865 would have been magnified to an even greater extent-- especially as the Royal Navy begins to take apart the USN and starts a blockade. hyperinflation vice the inflation we actually got.

If I ever go back to get my PhD in economics, I think I'll take an economic history course and I'll write my paper on the bond markets assessment of the war, i.e., a wisdom of the crowds take on who was going to win the American Civil War and how various events (political and battlefield) changed expectations.

astralis
18 May 12,, 20:20
If I ever go back to get my PhD in economics, I think I'll take an economic history course and I'll write my paper on the bond markets assessment of the war, i.e., a wisdom of the crowds take on who was going to win the American Civil War and how various events (political and battlefield) changed expectations.

i'd love to see that assessment.

on a related note, frankly speaking the north was -extraordinarily- lucky in that the war started in 1861, and that no one intervened. the UK was literally within a week or two from intervening when antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation happened.

much later-- say 5-10 years-- and things would have gotten far, far more difficult for the north.

The Economics of the Civil War | Economic History Services (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us)

very revealing figures there. the southern economy was expanding greatly during this time period, as cotton was getting more and more profitable yearly. throughout the 1840s and 50s there was a consolidation of the slave economy in the south, so combined with the technical improvements of the period, slavery was becoming more and more profitable.

this gives the lie to the "lost cause" meme that slavery would have disappeared by itself quietly were it not for yankee aggression.

moreover, the extra wealth would have been invaluable to the south when the war finally started-- plus it would represent a major deterrent on part of the north to do anything, as the slave economy tied itself even more closely to the north.

BTW, there was a LOT of planned infrastructure improvements throughout the 1860s for the South that got sh*t-canned because of the war-- railroads, supply depots, improved road infrastructure-- all of which would help southern interior defense.

the next round of military improvements, too, would be vastly more beneficial for the defense. we've covered gatling guns (which were nascent in the early 1860s). add to that repeating rifles/ubiquitous breechloading rifles, breechloading cannon, barbed wire...

zraver
18 May 12,, 20:21
Z,

Your posit on Lincoln looking to the 1864 election as his primary motivationin his actions for the Trent Affair flies in the face of over 10,000 volumes of scholarship. If there was any election he was looking at it would have been the 1862 midterms, not the general in 1864.

I am referrign less to the 64 Election than to Lincoln's political survival, if the Union fell, his political life was over, ironic that saving the Union cost him his physical life.


And lets not forget that the spectre of Prince Wheat and King Cod also had an impact on the Europeans. War with the US would cripple markets and economies in both hemispheres and lead to unrest in populations dependent on American foodstuffs.

But according to Shek, these considerations by leaders which are premised that the leaders will have to answer to the populace are not conditions of DPT, only current public demands. War had it erupted would have ruined political careers at the ballot box.

Shek,



Your observation suffers as evidence as it only provides correlation, and even at that, it's weak. Democracy is a newcomer to the nation-state, really only building its number after WWII. Thus, you have both a very short historical period to build a case and a small number of observations. Then you have to disintangle other causal factors from the form of government - is it Cold War balancing that prevented conflict, regional influence that prevented conflict, geography and resources (or lack there off), net assessment between two potential adversaries (e.g., the US has a lot of resources, but it's not worth fighting us).

it is generally accepted that the modern democratic nation state predates the overall concept of nation states as a whole. Iceland being the oldest, followed by an imperfect United Kingdom and then the USA, with non-democratic nation states emerging from the ashes of the Napoleonic Wars. Secondly, all I attempted to do was show that the paper refuses to look at the relevant factors of why democracies don't go to war and cherry picked (poorly) just a few items to try and refute DPT.

Double Edge
19 May 12,, 06:06
Z,

How long does it take for a democracy to turn mature. A few fair elections uninterrupted by any coups. For this to be the expectation, will take time. If that expectation is there then its a mature democracy.

Let's imagine the scenario of Israel surrounded by democracies. Is Israel better off or not ?

There will always be the west bank & Gaza. They have to go democratic too.

Terrorism against Israel should go down from Non-pal sources. There might still be some residual Pal elements left but it will become harder for them to operate.

So it would appear that DPT is in Israel's favour

Shek
19 May 12,, 12:46
Z,
I realized that we've been dancing around the wrong question, so here's the right one to reframe the main argument you've made.

Lincoln decided not to fight over the Trent affair because:
a) the US would lose to the UK and he would be punished by the voters for losing and the second and third order effects that would follow.
b) the US would fight another democracy and he would be punished by the voters for fighting another democracy.

Remember, DPT stipulates that democracies don't fight other democracies because they are a democracy, so the first answer breaks DPT's causal chain while the second answer would not falsify DPT. So far, discussion of a future political election has been invoked, and while the evidence doesn't support the election as centerpiece of the decision, for the sake of argument we'll let the conversation play out in this direction.

zraver
19 May 12,, 23:37
Z,
I realized that we've been dancing around the wrong question, so here's the right one to reframe the main argument you've made.

Lincoln decided not to fight over the Trent affair because:
a) the US would lose to the UK and he would be punished by the voters for losing and the second and third order effects that would follow.
b) the US would fight another democracy and he would be punished by the voters for fighting another democracy.

Remember, DPT stipulates that democracies don't fight other democracies because they are a democracy, so the first answer breaks DPT's causal chain while the second answer would not falsify DPT. So far, discussion of a future political election has been invoked, and while the evidence doesn't support the election as centerpiece of the decision, for the sake of argument we'll let the conversation play out in this direction.

No DPT claims democracies don't fight because the leadership on both sides has to answer to the populace in short order and because feelings of hostility are naturally reduced to a simmer from a boil because of shared cultural and economic attraction. That these two factors on both sides of the flashpoint combine to create conditions where war breaking out is highly unlikely.

Lincoln chose not to fight a two front war because it would end his career and legacy becuase it would end the Union. He had already proven he was willing to take office no matter the cost in life and treasure. Likely becuase he thought the Union would prevail even if a civil war did breakout. However the UK jumping in would have dashed those hopes and his future against the rocks.

Again, my point was merely to point out the paper does not do nearly a good enough job of laying out the factors that go into the decision to make or not make war and is thus confounded.

Shek
21 May 12,, 13:06
No DPT claims democracies don't fight because the leadership on both sides has to answer to the populace in short order and because feelings of hostility are naturally reduced to a simmer from a boil because of shared cultural and economic attraction. That these two factors on both sides of the flashpoint combine to create conditions where war breaking out is highly unlikely.

1. Wrong. A major strain of DPT is normative - democracies don't fight one another because the other is a democracy, and so it's like declaring war on your brother.
2. Shared cultural and economic attraction means that culture and economics are the causal factors, not democracy.

If it's boil to simmer that works and democracy has nothing to do with it, then democracies shouldn't fight, at least not be the cause of it. Yet, we see democracies instigate wars of choice, which means that boil to simmer can't explain away. Which means we're left to the normative values holding back democracies from fighting one another, but you've already rejected that causality, which is a major strain of DPT.



Lincoln chose not to fight a two front war because it would end his career and legacy becuase it would end the Union. He had already proven he was willing to take office no matter the cost in life and treasure. Likely becuase he thought the Union would prevail even if a civil war did breakout. However the UK jumping in would have dashed those hopes and his future against the rocks.

Actually, Lincoln didn't expect a clash of arms. He was prepared, but felt that as time passed, the boil would reduce to a simmer and the Unionists would prevail and the wayward states would kluge back together. However, the Secessionists owned the Confederate democracy and brought the clash of arms. Even after Fort Sumter, the expectation was a short war. Talking about taking office despite huge costs is a flawed ex post facto analysis that also implicitly lays blame to Lincoln for the choice of the Confederacy. And again, you cite a realist approach that looks at balance of power regardless of the internal regime, which is not DPT.


Again, my point was merely to point out the paper does not do nearly a good enough job of laying out the factors that go into the decision to make or not make war and is thus confounded.

No, the paper merely needs to falsify DPT's causal chain to falsify DPT. If avoids survivorship bias and doesn't conflate other non-DPT causal factors with DPT.