Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 279

Thread: Indian Defence News & Discussions

  1. #241
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    What is it that we don't understand? I said India is not going to bankrupt itself for taking on a terrorist adversary like Pakistan. We'll find out cheaper options too. We also have a brain.
    This is war we're talking about. There's no such thing as cheap. Terror may be cheap for Pakistan but it got them squat.

  2. #242
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    No country believes this Pakistani shit now.
    No one ever believes plausible deniability; it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of actual legal proof. That's why it's used. By multiple countries.

  3. #243
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    This is war we're talking about. There's no such thing as cheap. Terror may be cheap for Pakistan but it got them squat.
    Here, help us brainstorm more on this. Gaps to fill, things to improve, execution.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    No one ever believes plausible deniability; it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of actual legal proof. That's why it's used. By multiple countries.
    Plausible deniability is for SF ops or hiring a local for a spy-ring in foreign countries. All countries do that. Not terrosim. Pakistan is naked in front of the world now w.r.t it's FP regarding use of terrorists to further its goals in the subcontinet. And P5 supports India's legal proofs.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #244
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Here, help us brainstorm more on this. Gaps to fill, things to improve, execution.
    You've got to be shitting me! A bunch of armchair generals reading newspapers would have better knowledge and thinking than the commanders on the ground?

    I listen to the Coy OCs, ask them what they need to do their jobs. Do not pretend to tell them how to do their jobs. That is insulting to Captain Lemontree and Col Delta.

  5. #245
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You've got to be shitting me! A bunch of armchair generals reading newspapers would have better knowledge and thinking than the commanders on the ground?

    I listen to the Coy OCs, ask them what they need to do their jobs. Do not pretend to tell them how to do their jobs. That is insulting to Captain Lemontree and Col Delta.
    You got it wrong. I was not insulting anyone.

    600 billion USD/year as you said, is not possible for India to spend on defence. We barely spend 1.5% of our GDP on defense, and the chunk of it goes into paying salaries and pensions. India is not going to bankrupt itself. This is clear, sane thinking.

    When I said - not scaling down desires, what did you expect? That Pakistan continues to kill Indians, and we not retaliate? Mighty US was not able to win the war in Afghanistan with 600+ billion USD as its defence budget every year. Why? Say it here once and for all.

    You're assuming things. I was not trying to teach you anything. I always ask you. I ask you, to find out where I'm wrong, and where I can improve. My thinking might not gel with you, as you're ex-mil, but I always try to learn. And since I'm not from a military background, I'd read articles and debate on that. What's wrong in it? Correct me when I am wrong. What is there to take offence?

    The link that I gave, I wanted to know what all I missed. Is my line of thinking correct? Can it be done? Improvements, suggestions etcetera. It also meant that I agree with your arguments that - This is war we're talking about. There's no such thing as cheap. Terror may be cheap for Pakistan but it got them squat. It's not like I threw the link at you, and said, hey Colonel look what I dug out, this is what I'm going to send the Lt. Gen of the IA Northern Command. If you do not want to participate, I cannot force you. But, I hope you do. There's still a lot to learn.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  6. #246
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,953
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I listen to the Coy OCs, ask them what they need to do their jobs. Do not pretend to tell them how to do their jobs. That is insulting to Captain Lemontree and Col Delta.
    Those two should be here answering questions. Where are they ?

    I have seen zero input from these two for years now.

    LT's out of the loop. DCL can't say anything. Serving personnel are useless in these discussions. Not surprising. I know people in the forces and i would rather be here discussing things than with them.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Sep 19, at 19:39.

  7. #247
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    600 billion USD/year as you said, is not possible for India to spend on defence. We barely spend 1.5% of our GDP on defense, and the chunk of it goes into paying salaries and pensions. India is not going to bankrupt itself. This is clear, sane thinking.

    When I said - not scaling down desires, what did you expect? That Pakistan continues to kill Indians, and we not retaliate? Mighty US was not able to win the war in Afghanistan with 600+ billion USD as its defence budget every year. Why? Say it here once and for all.
    To do what the Americans did, you will have to spend what the Americans spent. It's as simple as that.

    Victory costs. You either pay more in lives or in dollars but you will pay both. If you don't have the dollars, you will pay in lives. There is no other way around it. Again, for the Battle of Berlin, Stalin paid with 300,000 lives. To think you can find a cheap way out is nothing more than fantasy thinking. Whatever easy solutions are out there, I can guarrantee you that the men on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani border have tried it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Mighty US was not able to win the war in Afghanistan with 600+ billion USD as its defence budget every year. Why? Say it here once and for all.
    The war was won when AQ was destroyed and the Taliban was kicked out of power. We lost the war the second we bought Karzai his Prime Minister seat. The primary objectives were all achieved without putting thought into what comes next. When you don't know what you want, you will ALWAYS get what you don't want. We should have just paid the Afghans to butcher each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The link that I gave, I wanted to know what all I missed. Is my line of thinking correct? Can it be done? Improvements, suggestions etcetera. It also meant that I agree with your arguments that - This is war we're talking about. There's no such thing as cheap. Terror may be cheap for Pakistan but it got them squat. It's not like I threw the link at you, and said, hey Colonel look what I dug out, this is what I'm going to send the Lt. Gen of the IA Northern Command. If you do not want to participate, I cannot force you. But, I hope you do. There's still a lot to learn.
    The one big mistake that you're making is that you're assuming the Pakistanis are a bunch of idiots who don't know anything better than terrorism.

    ALWAYS ASSUME THE OPPOSING COMMANDER IS JUST AS SMART, IF NOT SMARTER, THAN YOU ARE! It is what he got that is his limitations. 20 SF Indian commandoes can take on 30 regforce Pakistani regulars? This ain't the movies.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 05 Sep 19, at 00:52.

  8. #248
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  9. #249
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    To do what the Americans did, you will have to spend what the Americans spent. It's as simple as that.
    Understood the first time you said it.

    Victory costs. You either pay more in lives or in dollars but you will pay both. If you don't have the dollars, you will pay in lives. There is no other way around it. Again, for the Battle of Berlin, Stalin paid with 300,000 lives. To think you can find a cheap way out is nothing more than fantasy thinking.
    But the ISI and the Talibs fought you cheap. Hit NATO/ISAF forces, run away, recuperate, hit again. Sheltered in Pakistan. American ally.

    Sir, America is seeking a peace deal because tiredness has set in, as also writing blank cheques that goes into a bottomless pit. America used $120 million USD missiles to take out a group of Talibs. America has not won this war, because Pakistan won't let US win. We do better, because we are a poor country. Where you guys use sophisticated and costly equipments, we use bullets. More Indian lives are lost, but there is no other way to kill jihadis. We're not China and don't sit on trillions of USD reserves.

    Whatever easy solutions are out there, I can guarrantee you that the men on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani border have tried it.
    Okay. But, I don't remember India trying anything. You know something, so please share it.

    The war was won when AQ was destroyed and the Taliban was kicked out of power.
    That was in 2001, why wait till 2019? And now the same Taliban is having meetings with Zalmay Khalilzad. There won't be peace in Afghanistan, until Pakistan is there in the picture. This is the truth, but no one wants to admit it.

    We lost the war the second we bought Karzai his Prime Minister seat.
    If you're talking about corruption of the Karzai regime, whose fault is it? No oversight, writing cheques after cheques. If you're talking about his duplicity in trying to accomodate the Taliban, then again whose fault is it? US gave this guy his power, he should have been under the US thumb.

    The primary objectives were all achieved without putting thought into what comes next. When you don't know what you want, you will ALWAYS get what you don't want. We should have just paid the Afghans to butcher each other.
    Yes, yes and oh yes. :D

    After a decade we'll also think on the same lines, that we should have paid the Balochs and the Pashtuns to butcher the PA.

    The one big mistake that you're making is that you're assuming the Pakistanis are a bunch of idiots who don't know anything better than terrorism.

    ALWAYS ASSUME THE OPPOSING COMMANDER IS JUST AS SMART, IF NOT SMARTER, THAN YOU ARE! It is what he got that is his limitations. 20 SF Indian commandoes can take on 30 regforce Pakistani regulars? This ain't the movies.
    I'm a civilian. I like movies. You're ex-mil. You're here to correct perceptions and educating us. Writing in caps is screaming. :D
    Last edited by Oracle; 05 Sep 19, at 14:41.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #250
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  11. #251
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    But the ISI and the Talibs fought you cheap. Hit NATO/ISAF forces, run away, recuperate, hit again. Sheltered in Pakistan. American ally.
    No, it is not cheap. For every one of ours they got, they buried 30 of their own. They are outbleeding us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Sir, America is seeking a peace deal because tiredness has set in, as also writing blank cheques that goes into a bottomless pit. America used $120 million USD missiles to take out a group of Talibs. America has not won this war, because Pakistan won't let US win. We do better, because we are a poor country. Where you guys use sophisticated and costly equipments, we use bullets. More Indian lives are lost, but there is no other way to kill jihadis. We're not China and don't sit on trillions of USD reserves.
    1st off, we already won the war when we toss Omar out. The Taliban ain't one united group. They're a bunch of infighting mercs who uses one banner because it's easier to extort money as one big scary monster instead of several small little monsters. Omar's group is long gone and dead, never to return. The negotiations are a farce because the Taliban themselves can't agree what to share amongst themselves. What they do know is that if they kick out the American supported Kabul government, they lose access to American money and that's why they want to keep Kabul around.

    You would be better versed if you view the Pakistani rebels the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Okay. But, I don't remember India trying anything. You know something, so please share it.
    Capt LT already detailed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I'm a civilian. I like movies. You're ex-mil. You're here to correct perceptions and educating us. Writing in caps is screaming. :D
    I KNOW! I cannot stand stupidity. So stop acting stupid. If movie armies were that easy, don't you think we would have movie armies instead of real world armies?

  12. #252
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,501
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    1st off, we already won the war when we toss Omar out. The Taliban ain't one united group. They're a bunch of infighting mercs who uses one banner because it's easier to extort money as one big scary monster instead of several small little monsters. Omar's group is long gone and dead, never to return. The negotiations are a farce because the Taliban themselves can't agree what to share amongst themselves. What they do know is that if they kick out the American supported Kabul government, they lose access to American money and that's why they want to keep Kabul around.

    You would be better versed if you view the Pakistani rebels the same way.
    No you didn't win the war. You can try as many arguments as you want, but America's win would have been a stable Afghanistan. This was not the case when the Soviets withdrew, nor is it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Capt LT already detailed it.
    Don't know about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I KNOW! I cannot stand stupidity. So stop acting stupid. If movie armies were that easy, don't you think we would have movie armies instead of real world armies?
    Asking questions as a civilian is stupidity? Trying to build scenarios without any experience as a military man is a stupidity? Since when has asking questions or being curious considered as being stupid? Thank you for your views and opinions.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  13. #253
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    No you didn't win the war. You can try as many arguments as you want, but America's win would have been a stable Afghanistan. This was not the case when the Soviets withdrew, nor is it now.
    ALL OPOBJs were ACHIEVED! The primary strategic objectives were achieved. THE ONLY FREAKING reason we're staying is that we deny Afghanistan to others as a base of operations. We really don't give a fuck about the Afghan people one way or the other. If the Taliban wants to guarrantee that they won't allow anyone to use Afghanistan as a base against us, we pay them.

    Since when has stability got anything to do with winning wars? In the past, it's called vassal states. We were never out to conquer Afghanistan. It was a punitive expedition to destroy an Al Qaeda HQ and to wreck Afghanistan forever as a base for future. That we have done. The Soviets were out to conquer Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Asking questions as a civilian is stupidity? Trying to build scenarios without any experience as a military man is a stupidity? Since when has asking questions or being curious considered as being stupid? Thank you for your views and opinions.
    Since you don't use you god gifted brain of yours. If commandoes were the end-all, be-all of soldiering, then why don't we have commando regiments? Why do we spend money on line infantry, artillery, armour, and engineers?

    If ninjas were all that great, why do they hide and run away from the samurai?

    You've been here long enough to educate yourself the difference between the combat arms. I don't expect you to understand what is combined arms but I do expect you to know what the combat arms are by now.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 05 Sep 19, at 18:03.

  14. #254
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,953
    Sood had written an article i posted here a year or so back. The Americans never closed of the funding for the Taliban.

    What is Taliban source of funding ? Opium

    This more than the Paks explains their presence to this day.

    It's a glaring omission given their approach to follow the money philosophy they've espoused for many years now.

    The other glaring point as Dhruv mentioned is a failure to isolate the battlefield. Nothing goes in or comes out. Cut off the LoC's. Both Russians & Americans failed to do that.

    Sri Lankans did with the LTTE and ended that thirty year menace.

    Chris mentions the Afghan govt was not set up to be sustainable. They do not make enough to support themselves from domestic collections.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Sep 19, at 21:40.

  15. #255
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Don't know about it.
    This is as close as i found

    Frustratingly we never got an answer to the below question : (

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Brigadier Sir,

    I do not know the situation of the initial Indian offer but the ISAF was an initially an all European affair and in fact proceeded to insult the Canadians. The ISAF had initially asked for 300 Canadian combat engineers. CDS General Baril responded the ISAF take a Canadian battle group or they take nothing. The end result was that the Americans snap up 3 PPCLI Battle Group before the ISAF changed its mind.

    I would be real curious as to what India offerred. A brigade? Division? Corps?


    Indian troops will be placed under the strategic command of CENTCOM. Operational command would be runned out of its own AO.

    LT says karazai has to invite us for the sake of domestic compulsions. I don't buy this rationale. Then again who knows though. Commies in a coalition with Congress, any cooperation with the Americans is a straight no. They pulled support for the nuke deal and left the govt scrambling for dear life until the SP stepped in. So participating in an 'American led war' would be grounds to pull support too. I'd imagine.

    Think about the positions we've held. Serving under the UN flag ? ok, we've been doing this since the 60s. Serving under some other country's flag. Oh well, this brings back memories of the colonial era. Sepoys. I can't help thinking this kind of mindset has some role but its political in the end.

    We've served in countless UN missions. What was the big frickin' deal working with the Americans ? Figures, i don't make policy : )

    Ray says we offered but the Americans politely turned us down. This i vaguely remember reading. It also gels with commentary i've read. This would have been when the NDA was in charge. Here, i don't see any political interference. If this is the case then we only got 1 shot. UPA would not be able to do it.

    So saying the Americans did not request nicely masks the real reasons. Very PC like answer that offends no one : )
    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Sep 19, at 20:17.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. China Auto News and Related Discussions.
    By Inst in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Dec 09,, 20:02
  2. Pak-American viewpoints of Indian ABM defence
    By Tajmahal in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22 Dec 08,, 13:44
  3. Naval Discussions
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25 Nov 07,, 16:09
  4. Future Defence Purchases by the Indian Army
    By Su-47MKI in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 17 Aug 05,, 17:27
  5. Indian defence minister to visit Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15 Nov 03,, 09:28

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •