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

**USSWisconsin** · 21 Mar 12,, 21:35

Originally Posted by Blademaster

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

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

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

Originally Posted by commander

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

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

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

Originally Posted by commander

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

Originally Posted by commander

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

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

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

Originally Posted by commander

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

Originally Posted by zraver

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.