ganeshran Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What is your source of information that RAW and other Indian intelligence agencies are not doing their job or are all lazy bums? RAW is not something you see in typical state/central-govt offices. In fact' date=' in most likelihood, you would never ever get to see in your lifetime - inside workings of RAW. many of the failed attempts we do not even get to know - for some reason.[/quote'] The proof is the numerous terror attacks in the country. And no I am not only talking about the blasts in Pune and Mumbai, there are others which occur in the north east and attacks by Maoists. An intelligence agency's job is to collect information about such attacks and relay it to the law enforcement agencies, which clearly is not happening to the level it should. I am serious. What use is the numerical superiority if you dont have the capability to strike within a quick period of time? Any India Pakistan conflict would be on the radar of the world because both countries having nuclear weapons.The conflict must start before international pressure kicks in - this is the whole point of Cold Start. That is the reason why Pakistan is so wary of it - their deterrence holds no meaning if India launches a limited war at important places - the onus will be on them to cross the nuclear threshold which would also give India the chance of justifying a preemptive strike. The very possibility of such outcomes will act as a deterrent against Pakistan planning terror attacks on the country.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 ^@Ganesh Also, do not be so naive to believe that Indian intelligence/ govt has no hand whatsoever in the kind of state their enemy is in. It is not finished off, but its not difficult to see where they are headed.
ganeshran Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Platitudes!! No country has ever stopped all terrorism' date=' it just doesn't work. Secondly, we simply don't have that kind of resources. Whatever you might consider India to be they are just not that powerful.[/quote'] Ok then what is the acceptable criteria for terrorist attacks on the country? One per year is good enough to consider our intelligence agencies effective? I thought you were being rhetorical :dontknow: My threshold for war is a Mumbai like attack originating from Pakistan. I still say Pakistan will not launch a full scale nuclear attack on India given the ramifications it holds for them. In the scenario they launch a full scale nuclear strike (which I consider improbable), India's response will be a disproportionate nuclear attack. Given Pakistan's absence of second strike, that would be end of the war. My argument is not that a war should happen, it is that the probability that it will happen will deter the enemy from planning the first provocation. I am curious to know what you think is the best response by the government in case another 26/11 like terror attack on India originates from Pakistan.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 The proof is the numerous terror attacks in the country. And no I am not only talking about the blasts in Pune and Mumbai, there are others which occur in the north east and attacks by Maoists. An intelligence agency's job is to collect information about such attacks and relay it to the law enforcement agencies, which clearly is not happening to the level it should. How convenient to say - intelligence agency's job is to collect intelligence!!! Every one is not using cellphones/sms/laptops to coordinate their 'task'. Even if they do, it takes time in collecting and making sense out of information. I am serious. What use is the numerical superiority if you dont have the capability to strike within a quick period of time? Any India Pakistan conflict would be on the radar of the world because both countries having nuclear weapons.The conflict must start before international pressure kicks in - this is the whole point of Cold Start. That is the reason why Pakistan is so wary of it - their deterrence holds no meaning if India launches a limited war at important places - the onus will be on them to cross the nuclear threshold which would also give India the chance of justifying a preemptive strike. The very possibility of such outcomes will act as a deterrent against Pakistan planning terror attacks on the country. What shall I say. I am glad you are not heading our army / defense :). I hate repeating - it is not 1-1 between india and its 'enemy'.. Pak always had support and still has support of countries who were/are more powerful than India. And we have more to lose than to gain from a conflict, unless we can gather alliance (like US formed against Iraq) to make the move. btw - one question - is life of an army-man is cheaper than that of a civilian?
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 It is not a google / database search - that you will get the possible attackers from intelligence data in blink of an eye. Sometimes intelligence wins, and sometimes terrorists win. It is not like intelligence failed or always fails... terrorists - who have life at stake also do their best of their planning. It would be naive to think they are sitting ducks.
ganeshran Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I am sure you must have visited some crowded markets/slums at least once in your life. Also, you know how easy it is to make these small bombs in house. It is not yet possible to track each and every individual. Also, what works in US/UK, may not necessarily work in Indian conditions. I ask you the same question that I asked Gunner paaji - what is the acceptable criteria of terror attacks for a nation with our size and resources. If there is only one every year, shall we consider that our agencies did a good job? Again - what makes you think that Indian army is not capable of mobilizing its forces in time. or they do not camp at appropriate strategic locations? They did not till 5-6 years ago after which the army proposed the Cold start doctrine. Its existence is still mired in doubt though. The government refuses to accept it. First of all - it is not 1 on 1 fight and neither it is like you make one strike and then pull out swiftly and wont expect a retaliatory action in future - in various forms. Also - I will repeat again - "Do not start a fight, but if you must, you must finish it(enemy) off - or die trying." So you have to be very sure of finishing it off, unless it has already come to a matter of life and death (as a nation). It is a 1 on 1 fight. Though US or China may exert diplomatic pressure, I dont think they will enter the war as active participants. A defeated/weakened Pakistan would only be more pliable to chinese policy and though they might help Pakistan with arms, they wont fight on its behalf.
gs Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Intelligence failure and terrorism shouldnt be viewed with Pak centric perspective alone. There are serious threats from terrorists in the north east as well as from PWG/naxals. External powers maybe instigating them, but it's essentially a deep rooted malaise in our society which has to be terminated with the same ruthlessness like in Punjab in the 80s and early 90s.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I do not need to imagine - you already gave examples from your vast knowledge..e.g. throwing stones on paki embassy. That would be my way of doing it but you don't necessarily have to do it the same way. You could use your own 'area of influence' And you yourself wrote how corrupt and inefficient the govt is so I don't know why you ppl would not want to do something about it. I never said that there is an anarchy in India Ind lacks resources and the govt traditionally hasn't had a strong leadership. I doubt things would improve unless the citizens do something to change the situation Coming back to India's ability to handle attacks: * does IPF have modern helicopters that can be flown in time to counter terrorists? I am not talking about using para military forces to fight terrorist holding up a location. * how do inter departments exchange information? Is there a central database available? If the answer is no, then it's pathetic for a country that has fought wars with both Pak and China, a country that has had numerous terrorist attacks. You cannot expect those in the defense services to die for civilians, if civilians don't have it in them to stand up for their country. What are you going to do? Act as if our govt and intelligence services, police, etc are highly capable and attacks happen despite them doing everything (are they really doing everything) and the problems would be solved based on what they have been doing now! And anyone who suggests taking matters in his own hands is stupid. If that's the case, I would love to be Ind's enemy because it is a fundamentally made up of a weak population (wonder why British could rule for so long). I read somewhere that Ind is not a nation but a population and that's what I see all the time. Go influence your area of influence (which is probably closing your eyes, imaging ind is strong and the problems will disappear)
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Ok then what is the acceptable criteria for terrorist attacks on the country? One per year is good enough to consider our intelligence agencies effective? Nothing so arbitrary as numbers per year etc. They just have to continue doing their vest to stop any and all attempts. I thought you were being rhetorical :dontknow: My threshold for war is a Mumbai like attack originating from Pakistan. I still say Pakistan will not launch a full scale nuclear attack on India given the ramifications it holds for them. In the face of an existential threat there are no ramifications other than survival. The trouble is you are continuously trying to predict their response as if you have sufficient information. I am saying that since they are weaker any sudden moves by India will be viewed by them as a fight for survival and set them off. Further, the Pakistani army views the whole nation of Pakistan in a slightly different light. As long as they can retain the bare minimum essentials and a military state, they won't hesitate to fight. Whereas the Indian army is still controlled by civilian authorities and their role is the defence of the nation. In the scenario they launch a full scale nuclear strike (which I consider improbable)' date= India's response will be a disproportionate nuclear attack. Given Pakistan's absence of second strike, that would be end of the war. My argument is not that a war should happen, it is that the probability that it will happen will deter the enemy from planning the first provocation. I am curious to know what you think is the best response by the government in case another 26/11 like terror attack on India originates from Pakistan. Simply wrong. It all depends on where Pakistan strikes first, if their first strike takes out the civilian and military leadership, the war is over. India will be in no position to do anything, that is a simple fact. No country has ever faced a first strike and gained experience on response. The only country which did surrendered in under 3 days. Secondly, their tactical response if you do manage to launch a strike would be to fall back. I will tell you one other thing if they do launch a first strike the whole world will step in and stop India from retaliating, the pressure on us will be unbearable, in their case like I said earlier it will be fait accompli. The best response for the Indian government is to continue to strengthen intel, educate people and improve the police forces apart from obviously strengthening diplomacy. Our diplomacy at this moment consists of pleading with the US to talk to Pakistan, that is not true diplomacy. On the other hand the Pakistani diplomacy has always been to point out to the US that it is in the best interests of America to help them which is why they are rather more successful. In a negotiation diplomatic or otherwise you have to make the other party feel that their destiny is tied to yours and if you lose, they lose too.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 That would be my way of doing it but you don't necessarily have to do it the same way. You could use your own 'area of influence' And you yourself wrote how corrupt and inefficient the govt is so I don't know why you ppl would not want to do something about it. I never said that there is an anarchy in India Ind lacks resources and the govt traditionally hasn't had a strong leadership. I doubt things would improve unless the citizens do something to change the situation Coming back to India's ability to handle attacks: * does IPF have modern helicopters that can be flown in time to counter terrorists? I am not talking about using para military forces to fight terrorist holding up a location. * how do inter departments exchange information? Is there a central database available? If the answer is no, then it's pathetic for a country that has fought wars with both Pak and China, a country that has had numerous terrorist attacks. You cannot expect those in the defense services to die for civilians, if civilians don't have it in them to stand up for their country. What are you going to do? Act as if our govt and intelligence services, police, etc are highly capable and attacks happen despite them doing everything (are they really doing everything) and the problems would be solved based on what they have been doing now! And anyone who suggests taking matters in his own hands is stupid. If that's the case, I would love to be Ind's enemy because it is a fundamentally made up of a weak population (wonder why British could rule for so long). I read somewhere that Ind is not a nation but a population and that's what I see all the time. Go influence your area of influence (which is probably closing your eyes, imaging ind is strong and the problems will disappear) Your starting statement is good indicator of your maturity level and distance from reality. I am not surprised you still do not understand the meaning of 'area of influence'. And I can see how your dreams & talks of pelting stones is solving all these problems.
kabira Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 First thing india has to do is vote out this government. You can hardly call them government, they govern nothing. Just read some articles on India Today or Outlook etc, you will see even bureaucrats are not willing to take any action, since ministers are not willing to take chances. Our finance minister and home minister are aiming for PM's chair and fighting with each other. Their another senior leader Diggubhaiyya attacks MMS and then retracts from that statement. We had our worst scams by minister of this very government. It took them really long time to actually charge Raja, and long long time, many many parliament session to appoint JPC. I feel our Public Cadres from IPS, IAS have big role if we have to change our system. Just imagine if 50% them were honest like Kiran Bedi, Jagdeeshan etc, politicians will not dare to be corrupt if that happens. Atleast politicians go to elections for their accountability, but this Bureaucrats they are never ever fired. Good ones are transferred to irrelevant departments. I think public should actually vote for the performance of the bureaucrats every 2 years or so. If they did good job, made the city, town better, they get raise or some sort of cash benefit. I know I may be dreaming. But we need really really strong, no-nonsense leader that can change the system from top to bottom. It may take us 10-15 years to jsut change.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 For those who keep calling for the 'action'. one question - is life of an army-man cheaper than that of a civilian? Also, is 'attack/retaliation' it the fool-proof solution against possible future terror activities? I am not claiming either of them is more/less than other. It is so selfish for one to say that 'send them to war/battle'.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 As for Pakistan, I usually tend to underestimate it * we saw how their Micky mouse security when SL toured Pak. I am sure even mall security is better in NA * ind has ripped it apart in wars so I am not sure Pak has it in it to fight a direct war. All we see is proxy wars being carried out against Ind, their clown soldiers dressed up like militants and fought in Kargil * pak is churning out nukes like sausages but does it have guts to use them. I won't be surprised if they pass it on to some terrorist group to use it against Ind .... And who knows if there is a war, Pak would have sold out it's nuke or it's missile system would just explode there or there want be enough uranium :hysterical: You can't take this nation seriously. The best way it can fight is by what it is doing now, I.e. proxy war .... But Indians like to hype Pak because they don't like to fight. War is disastrous. Now by imagining Pak will strike first, Ind automatically creates a deterrent to go to war to help give it an excuse to not fight At the end of the day, Ind and pakis are the same ppl who divided by a line. They are weak. One likes to portray itself as strong, while the other imagines itself to be strong because it is large and has a huge population
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 First thing india has to do is vote out this government. You can hardly call them government, they govern nothing. Just read some articles on India Today or Outlook etc, you will see even bureaucrats are not willing to take any action, since ministers are not willing to take chances. Our finance minister and home minister are aiming for PM's chair and fighting with each other. Their another senior leader Diggubhaiyya attacks MMS and then retracts from that statement. We had our worst scams by minister of this very government. It took them really long time to actually charge Raja, and long long time, many many parliament session to appoint JPC. I feel our Public Cadres from IPS, IAS have big role if we have to change our system. Just imagine if 50% them were honest like Kiran Bedi, Jagdeeshan etc, politicians will not dare to be corrupt if that happens. Atleast politicians go to elections for their accountability, but this Bureaucrats they are never ever fired. Good ones are transferred to irrelevant departments. I think public should actually vote for the performance of the bureaucrats every 2 years or so. If they did good job, made the city, town better, they get raise or some sort of cash benefit. I know I may be dreaming. But we need really really strong, no-nonsense leader that can change the system from top to bottom. It may take us 10-15 years to jsut change. Kabira, a few decades ago the civil services in India were both educated and strong. They used to be a good counter balance to the minister. the minster's role was policy making and the role of the civil services was to implement and administer the policy. Then the ministers and the political parties on purpose dismantled the bureaucracy and civil services and filled them with lazy ****s who were very poorly educated. This was done in order for the politicians to take complete control of both policy making and administration. Now you can see the results. An example of this is Maran approving the actual licenses to Aircel. How is that his role? It is a purely administrative order which should have been passed by the head of the DoT. hope you see what I mean. I am all for reservation in government jobs, but you have to raise the educational bar. People should be expected to be more qualified than just passing the IAS which means a good degree from one of the top Indian Universities etc. This is how you build an institution. In our case rebuild because they dismantled rather corruptly what was in place when the British left the Country.
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 You can't take this nation seriously. The best way it can fight is by what it is doing now, I.e. proxy war .... But Indians like to hype Pak because they don't like to fight. War is disastrous. Now by imagining Pak will strike first, Ind automatically creates a deterrent to go to war to help give it an excuse to not fight At the end of the day, Ind and pakis are the same ppl who divided by a line. They are weak. One likes to portray itself as strong, while the other imagines itself to be strong because it is large and has a huge population Do you believe that the mentality and the power wielded by the Pakistani armed forces in Pakistan is similar to that of the Indian armed forces?
gs Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Simply wrong. It all depends on where Pakistan strikes first, if their first strike takes out the civilian and military leadership, the war is over. India will be in no position to do anything, that is a simple fact. No country has ever faced a first strike and gained experience on response. The only country which did surrendered in under 3 days. Secondly, their tactical response if you do manage to launch a strike would be to fall back. I will tell you one other thing if they do launch a first strike the whole world will step in and stop India from retaliating, the pressure on us will be unbearable, in their case like I said earlier it will be fait accompli. That's a scary and probably a realistic scenario considering the nut jobs in charge of them across the border. As per some reports Pak is churning out a lot of nukes and probably already has a numerical superiority over India even if they are qualitatively inferior.
akshayxyz Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 @rett for ridiculing Indian Armed Forces. Have you ever met even a single Indian Army man in your life? I have lost one in my family and some are holding responsible positions in defence projects. I am not claiming we are at the same level as China or USA.. but ridiculing commitment of our armymen is simply not done - when there have been countless examples of their sacrifice.
Guest Gunner Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 That's a scary and probably a realistic scenario considering the nut jobs in charge of them across the border. As per some reports Pak is churning out a lot of nukes and probably already has a numerical superiority over India even if they are qualitatively inferior. Most people simply don't realize what a first strike would mean to India. We will go down in a heap. They think Pak strikes first, we lose a few million people then push a button and wipe out Pakistan. The result of a first strike is just incomprehensible, ask the Japs.
jonas10 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 The dogs in congress will blame it on home grown terrorists no matter what. They will do anything to prevent Pakistan from having to take the blame. They know damn well if Pakistan is behind this the people have had enough and action would need to be taken. Tomorrow morning a lie will be imminent you can count on it.
zen Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Do you believe that the mentality and the power wielded by the Pakistani armed forces in Pakistan is similar to that of the Indian armed forces? That's because military has been in power for many decades in Pak. India's governance model is different. Pak has always been at war with Ind, mainly through proxy in the last few decades. Only thing is it doesn't have it in it to carry out a full fledged war. More than Pak making a direct nuke hit on Ind, chances of it passing the nuke to a terrorist outfit are higher. Which is why we need to take these attacks as a part of a war strategy of Pak .... Earlier they experimented with sending militants to Mumbai via boat, today we had another series of blasts, now you only have to ask when a nuke attack is coming up Pak knows Ind system is weak. If Pak had been stronger, it would have carried out a full fledged attack on Ind a long time ago .... The question probably is not will Pak do a first strike but how and when : dontknow:
Recommended Posts