| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Indian Govt hints at doubling defence expenditure |
| 2008-06-11 |
| NEW DELHI: Notwithstanding Pakistan's unilateral freeze on its defence spending and a request to others to follow, India on Tuesday hinted at doubling its defence expenditure as its current spend was much below the world average despite a booming economy. Defence minister A K Antony on Tuesday said the modernization of armed forces was one of the top most priorities of the government. "Our defence budget is just 1.99% of the GDP, which is one of the lowest in the world. The ideal situation would be 3% of GDP, which is the global average," he added. Antony's comments came just a day after Pakistan premier Yousuf Raza Gilani made a statement that his government had decided to reduce the defence budget and "hoped to see a reciprocal gesture from its neighbour for the sake of peace and prosperity of the region". Pakistan's current spending on defence is nearly 3% of its GDP at around Rs 275 billion. Antony's remarks are not only a rebuff to Pakistan but seen as an assertion of the fact that India's strategic and defence preparedness are no more Pakistan oriented. The focus has shifted to China. "Armed forces all over the world are modernizing and becoming technology intensive. We must adopt a joint approach, keeping in view the varied security challenges being faced by our nation," he said stressing on "integration of tri-service approach in thought and in action". The defence minister said the country's most important challenge in the foreseeable future still remains the growing instability in its neighbourhood. He said India has continuously expressed serious concerns on cross-border terrorism and has reiterated the importance of Pakistan fulfiling its commitment against terrorism. Antony said it is yet to be seen whether the recently formed government in Pakistan is able to address issues of national security, religious fundamentalism and cross-border terrorism effectively. He warned that forces within J&K and those outside, who do not want successful conduct of elections and peace in the state, will try their best to disrupt the democratic process. "We will have to keep a constant vigil and intensify our efforts to ensure conduct of free and fair elections in an atmosphere of peace," he said. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #7 the M-16 design as modified over the past 30 years is still functional and acceptable. The same could be said for the F-15 and the DDG-51. I do think a variety of weapons for the infantryman is advisable. And a far lower maintenance device than the M-16 could be developed. It would have been if Generals had to use it daily. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 17:56 |
| #6 I will probably get flamed for saying this but the M-16 design as modified over the past 30 years is still functional and acceptable. What needs to be changed is the caliber in use : 5.56mm is just too small, has bullets that are too lightweight, and is too short-ranged for today's combat. Way too many confirmed reports of having to hit the enemy with 3 or 4 rounds to do a takedown. The caliber can easily be bumped up to a 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel, thereby retaining the lower receivers and all the muscle memory and training associated with them. Just replace the upper receivers, the magazines and the ammo itself. And the changeover could be done for less than the cost of a single DDG1000. Plus the leftover 5.56mm ammo could be sent back to the States to be linked and then used in the SAWs presently issued. Within a couple of years, all new SAWs would have to be in the new caliber but the SAW in 5.56mm is a very effective weapon right now. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-06-11 17:34 |
| #5 Agree completely. This is a war of boots on the ground. That's where we should be spending the money. Maybe even give the rifleman a weapon that's not a half century old, too. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 17:08 |
| #4 NS - I was envisioning an expansion of combat forces, rather than just a bunch of new hardware. We need several additional divisions, so we can fight on as many fronts as A-Q and the rest of the islamonutz choose, and still have enough reserves to spell our fighting forces when they become exhausted. Weaponry is fine, but if you don't have trigger-pullers, it's useless. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-06-11 16:22 |
| #3 I'm not sure we need to spend more money, but we sure need to spend more intelligently. F-22s, DDG1000s, LCS and all the other cold war style nation-state warfare weapons are not the highest and best use of limited resources. My only regret is that Gates doesn't get to stay around a lot longer. He really seems to be shaking things up the right way, which is a lot more than I ever expected from career CIA. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 15:23 |
| #2 #1 Current US defense spending is also 3% of GDP, while 4% is being urged. In comparision, the United states spent 7.5% of GDP during the Cold War. Posted by: Ptah 2008-06-11 09:27 Yes, and we won the Cold War because Russia, who was spending almost 15% of its GDP couldn't produce either the quantity or quality of weapons necessary to confront the US. We should still be spending 4% or more of our GDP on the military, for the simple reason that the world is a hostile place, and we need to be prepared for whatever happens. Unfortunately, a major party in our government doesn't believe we need weapons - that we can talk our way through anything. Roosevelt's words are applicable here - "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". The Democrats have allowed our "stick" to be shortened, considerably. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-06-11 15:11 |
| #1 Current US defense spending is also 3% of GDP, while 4% is being urged. In comparision, the United states spent 7.5% of GDP during the Cold War. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2008-06-11 09:27 |