Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if - US army confronted the Indian force on 1971 ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    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. ;)
    sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

    Comment


    • #47
      ^^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.
      Last edited by Firestorm; 12 May 12,, 00:50.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        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...04/Layne94.pdf
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Shek View Post
          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...04/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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Shek View Post
            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...04/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..........

            Comment


            • #51
              sunny_10 Reply

              "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.
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Have two mature democracies ever engaged in a war (more than 1000 dead)?
                List of wars between democracies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                mature ? a democracy is a democracy

                Comment


                • #53
                  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).
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                    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
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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 ?
                      J'ai en marre.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                        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


                        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

                        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……….

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          [QUOTE=sunny_10;872170]here we have its picture

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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 .
                            J'ai en marre.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              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.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 14 May 12,, 14:07.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                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 (The Col or another proud Canadian might prove me wrong)
                                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X