Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gunther who wrote (1030)	5/29/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: vegetarian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

Although it may appear to make sense for India to become a US ally, the problem with that solution is that India will give up its independence in making such Nuclear tests; guess what condition US will put on India if it were to become a US ally...and they may just end up giving that freedom up for possibly peanuts in help from US with the risk of leaving that freedom to the very countries that threaten them. I seriously doubt it would be a workable solution unless US is willing to make a lot of concessions to India which history has shown that US is unlikely/unwilling to do.

To: gunther who wrote (1030)	5/29/1998 8:44:00 AM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

I-ran,I-raq and 'proper' China. Gunther: From Charlie Ross Show last night. Subject: India/Pakistan and the nuclear dilemma. Participants: Sen.Moynihan,UN Ambassador Bill Richardson,a ex ambassador and an 'expert',whose names I didn't catch. When Bill Richardson was asked whether China's behavior in light of the recent events Richardson replied something like this. Bill Richardson: China's behavior was very 'proper' as indicated statements shows after both tests. Now let us consider this statement within the context of all this. a)China has been helping Pakistan to develop nuclear & missile capabilities for the last 25 years and the U.S new about it but turned a blind eye towards all this. b)China is also supplying nuclear technology to Iran & U.S knows about it. c)China supplied nuclear technology to N.Korea,known fact by everybody. d)China received nuclear and other military technology from the U.S up until 7 years ago. e)China also tested nuclear devices after signing CTBT like France. f)China also enjoys MFN status from the U.S Now think about the U.S ambassador to the U.N's statement, ie China's behavior is very 'proper'. Assuming for a minute Richardson is echoing the administration's stand on foreign policy,all I can say is WOW. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sen.Moynihan who was an ambassador to India and an overt friend of India had this to say. Situation in the sub continent is very serious,not only for the area but for the whole world. The only way to ease the situation is for the world 'powers' to have a direct dialogue with India,Pakistan and China at the highest level,meaning at the heads of state level.He suggests that the world leaders should jointly visit these countries and convince them to refrain from further escalation. He specifically noted diplomacy by some under secretary or deputy secretary from the state department won't work. He also thinks the Indians are reasonable people and that he couldn't say that for sure about Pakistan,but then again Moynihan is a fan of India and not a big fan of Pakistan and Muslim political ideologies. He also warned Pakistan's 'bomb' is the first 'Islamic bomb' and hence more troubling. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 'expert' guy keep referring to Iran and Iraq as I-ran and I-raq and said I-ran would be the next to go nuclear with Chinese help.I didn't pay much attention to the 'expert' on the count of I don't like to listen to foreign policy 'experts' who can not pronounce the name of the countries.<gg> The ex ambassador to Pakistan was a nice guy. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As for India trying to be friends with the U.S,all I can say is it is easier said than done as it takes two to tango,and besides I don't think the U.S wants give up their interests in China.But who knows stranger things have happened.

To: gunther who wrote (1030)	5/29/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

Indo/US relations since 1954- India's threat perspective. [Source : The Indian Defence Review, c 1997 by Lancer Publishers & Distributors.]ÿ [For Private use only] Gunther and all: Here is an excerpt from an article written by Brigadier G.B.Reddi Retired)regarding India's defence policy issues. I believe it is published some time in 1997 in India Defence weekly by Lancer UK. If you want to read the whole article a link is given at the end. Keep in mind that it's the personal opinion of a retired Brigadier and do not reflect the actual government policy and the actual reality might very well be different. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Indo/US Relations. After 1954, our relations with USA deteriorated irretrievably. Mutual distrust largely marked our relations. After the end of the Cold War, both countries made an attempt to rechart the course to ally status. Expectations of building enduring economic ties were raised. Hopes of military co-operation even were kindled. Despite our endemic political instability and grotesque bureaucracy, US promoters launched joint ventures: Coke, Kentucky Chicken, Levi Jeans etc. signifying a major breakthrough. When the prospects of a new relationship were emerging, the Brown Amendment struck us. The Americans paid scant respect to our reactions. They were insensitive to our hawks, who are demanding quid pro quo. Naturally, the pitch has been queered demanding "throw the Coke, Kentucky, Levi and Enron" out. US influence will diminish. Many favour reciprocatory politico-diplomatic affronts and thus a reversal of the politico-diplomatic-economic clock, albeit temporarily. In the ultimate analysis, there is a lack of coherent and credible strategic thrust. But there is excitement over emerging challenges and opportunities. And we over-react and expose our vulnerabilities. Today's situation is not as bad as it is made out to be. But it will become worse if USA provides military and economic aid to Pakistan continuously, and China resumes covert or overt support to our insurgencies in the North-East. The Current situation still offers opportunities for promoting our relations both with USA and China. If we do not seize them now, time may run out for us. India's Threat perspective ÿ Until 1971, our threat perspective largely centred around Pakistan. Later, it shifted to China with utter disregard for emerging geo-strategic realities. However, it was limited to a conventional warfare scenario. China's nuclear weapon capability was conveniently left out. We almost went to war with Pakistan and China during the late 1980s-dangerous brinkmanship. We aggressively sought a regional superpower role during the 1980s and intervened in Sri Lanka and the Maidives. We may set our superordinate goal as parity with China. But, China is way ahead of us. Its modernization programmes are in advanced stages of progress. It has renewed its Russian connection. MiG-31 and SU-27 aircraft have already joined the PLA in 1 994. MiG-31 s are being license-produced at the rate of 4 aircraft per month. China is also taking Israeli assistance. A whole range of advanced technologies are being used to upgrade and modernize Chinese forces. Its implications are manifold. Of all of them, three are critical. One, China is far ahead of us in all almost all fields, and without technology induction we cannot catch up with them. Two, China may transfer state-of-the-art weapons systems to Pakistan, if USA denies the same to them. Three, we must make the right choice between USA, EU, and Russia for our combat systems to match China"s MiG-31s, SU-27s, etc. We must make sincere fundamental shifts on our political and diplomatic fronts. Pending significant breakthroughs, the choice for us is simple-maintain minimum strategic nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence vis-A-vis China. It should automatically counter Pakistani threat. Surely the costs, over the last 47 years, to develop nuclear technology need to be gainfully utilized. A brief analysis of our nuclear threat perspective will show the void or dilemmas. These are succinctly highlighted in the book, The Blind Men of Hindoostan by General K. Sundarji, acclaimed as the thinking general. The logic of undertaking threat perceptions separately for nuclear and non-nuclear contingencies is quite incomprehensible. They can be done separately, but should be finally synthesized. Only then does holistic analysis become possible. Such a strategic clarity on. "Against whom, how, when and where?" is exceedingly vital for long-term defence preparedness and planning. On the internal front, we viewed insurgencies in our North-East as a good training ground for war with monumental stupidity and failed to find enduring solutions. Even now, lack of political will to resolve out standing internal threats is quite apparent. In Punjab, our leaders abetted Sikh separatist demands and dealt with them lackadaisically until we were rudely awakened by Operation Blue Star. There is continuing strategic bankruptcy in Jammu & Kashmir. More important is the woeful lack of sensitivity to the rising expectations of people everywhere for devolution, decentralization and autonomy. No nation can wage wars on both the external and internal fronts simultaneously. It is a sure recipe for disaster. Ideally, peace is vital to promote progress and prosperity. If so, minimization of threat concerns should form the basis of our political and diplomatic strategy. If we allow a threat-level analysis based on force-level comparisons purely for a conventional warfare contingency, our requirements will multiply phenomenally. Our nation cannot afford it. Anyway, the days of uni-service centred threat analysis are over. An integrated approach is vital. In the absence of a National Security Council, it is an anathema for all generalists and specialists. The economic constraints will be real. The focus must be on development first and defence later. The cost of modern armies will be astronomical. Hence, modernization must change from the numerical superiority syndrome to technical superiority concept. bharat-rakshak.com