| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Indian Army will go hi-tech |
| 2003-04-04 |
| Indian Army is clamoring for rapid overall modernization to ensure "credible deterrence" against Pakistan which includes "a strategic nuclear deterrence" to dissuade adversaries from any misadventures, local press reported on Friday. Defense sources said, India has only a slight edge over Pakistan in terms of conventional military capabilities. The Army's modernization plan becomes more important with the government considering "tough options" against Pakistan. Meaning that they fully expect the jihadis to ignite a real war between the two countries in the relatively near future... Sources say the alarming shortfalls are in fields like self-propelled and air defense artillery guns, night-fighting capabilities and attack helicopters, weapon-locating and battlefield surveillance radars, early-warning devices and electronic warfare systems. Been watching operations in Iraq, have they? The 10-month troop deployment along the Indo-Pak border, Operation Parakram, also exposed the lack of effective precision-strike capabilities. Consequently, the Army now wants more precision-guided munitions. A balanced force structure with matching capabilities in weapons and equipment is needed to get "full spectrum capability" and decisive technological edge over Pakistan. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #8 Damn straight,RJ.Say it agin and make it loud! |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-05 08:28:34 |
| #7 The UN is not a democratic institution. As an Indian I am completely against the concept of permanent members of the security councils (with their undemocratic veto power), however if it has to exist than India should be a member of it. Although frankly I think that the UN should be disbanded completely, though related organisation such as WHO, UNESCO, UNAID etc should be kept. It seems incredible to me that the UNSC which has a majority of non-democratic nations in terms of population (due to china) would be able to dictate terms to a country like India, or for that matter any other democratic nations. How is it that when most of these dictatorships deny any freedom to their own citizens should be able to tell democratic nations how to run their affairs. |
| Posted by: rg117 2003-04-04 17:53:27 |
| #6 Question to ask yourself: If the UN is "viable" - they why does the largest deomcarcy on Earth NOT have a seat on the Scruity Council, yet a small bigoted racist country thats not even in the top 25 economies (France) has a VETO on that council? Yet another reason the UN is beyond salvage, and shoudl be abandoned. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-04-04 16:19:36 |
| #5 Patrick, I'm glad that you're interested. I think the general problem in the west is that most people underestimate the technological capabilities of India. Until a few years a go I used to think the same, but after doing my own research on the Net I came to realise how advanced India actaully. Admitedly, there is a lot of poverty but you have to remember that India has a Middle Class equal to the population of Europe. India has some great technology that doesn't get the same publicity as in the west eg Kali-5000 A useful site is BHARAT RAKSHAK |
| Posted by: rg117 2003-04-04 15:32:59 |
| #4 rg117, You make some very good points. Thanks for the links -- I'll give them a read. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-04-04 15:09:21 |
| #3 Patrick, I think your comments are fair but I think the emphasis in semi-socialist should be on SEMI. The government is making some progress in privatising the huge money sucking public sector companies [Ministry of Divestment] even though there is opposition from the lefty parties. Most of the defence equipment is currently bought from Russia or developed / manufactured by public sector companies [DRDO]. But the government is making the industry open to the private sector including foreign companies [India Woos Foreign Aircraft, Military Hardware Makers] With regards to this being a fallout of the Iraq war, I must disagree. In 1998 India had a major border war with Pakland [Kargil War, American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House ]. Since that war, India has been making a major attempt to modernise the military. India's IT industry gives it a huge advantage in its goal to modernise the military. There are a few examples where this has worked, eg [Brahmos] Just my thought... |
| Posted by: rg117 2003-04-04 14:35:05 |
| #2 Patrick----Interesting comments. If all these countries want the techno wiz-bangs like the US, then they will need to have the economy to afford to develop it, buy it, or steal it (like China). To have an economy robust enough to afford it, one has to have the freedom, creativity and the energy of the populace to make things happen. Saudi has the money, India has the brains, but none of them have that basic sense of freedom and liberty that brings out the best in people to make good things happen. Until some fundamentals are changed, nothing else will really happen. Adapt or die, basic evolution. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-04 14:18:39 |
| #1 That's interesting. Thanks to a very good educational system, India has a cadre of very competent, technically-oriented people. Their computer programmers, for example, are second to none in my experience. However, I question the ability of the semi-socialist Indian economy to deliver the needed hi-tech equipment for a modernized Indian army. I wonder if we're seeing an interesting fallout from the obvious dominance of US military capabilities. Many nations may begin to realize that if they want to be a contender, they'll need US-style equipment. But the only way to get US-style equipment (unless you want to import ) is to create an economy that can support the sort of efficiencies and ability to innovate that characterizes the US economy. Which means you may be forced to restructure your economy along more Western lines. Hmm, is that what happened to China? |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-04-04 13:38:29 |