Terror attacks (UK)

[Guest dada_rocks]

In the process making the other two stronger with our support to kick us harder later on.

How that happens, please enlighten me. How will our stance in talibani-type will empower the other two..

[Lurker]

Back in the early days Chacha Nehru sent them strong feelers (to put it Mildly) that Capitalism = Evil and hence they went looking elsewhere. Its not like US had anything against India .... our shanpatti Babus had this fetish for Socialism and rest is history as the cliche goes.

Wow! What a take on things BB? I suppose you conviniently forgot that one simple issue you keep harping about on other threads - Kashmir. Here are all the UN resolutions on Kashmir(starting right from 1948). Please go through them and if you desire let us know how many times US/UK have essentially voted for Pakistan's stance - atleast Internationalising the issue. http://www.gharib.demon.co.uk/unres/index.htm Go ahead give it a shot and let us know how many times USA voted against Indian stance...and in the light of which why do you beleive India should have overlooked that and joined USA block even if it meant losing Kashmir. Go on.

Yeah .. if you dont want to be renamed to Latif Khan ... you have every reason to criticize and do whatever it takes to stay as "Lurker" .... however if you see no evil in getting forced into renaming yourselves ... there is nothing else that will qualify as evil in your world and nothing that I will say will convince you to change your mind.

Lacks complete substance and any sense really. xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Wow! What a take on things BB? I suppose you conviniently forgot that one simple issue you keep harping about on other threads - Kashmir. Here are all the UN resolutions on Kashmir(starting right from 1948). Please go through them and if you desire let us know how many times US/UK have essentially voted for Pakistan's stance - atleast Internationalising the issue. http://www.gharib.demon.co.uk/unres/index.htm Go ahead give it a shot and let us know how many times USA voted against Indian stance...and in the light of which why do you beleive India should have overlooked that and joined USA block even if it meant losing Kashmir. Go on.

Voting in UN came afterwards, Nehruji's grand-standing preceded that event.

[Lurker]

Voting in UN came afterwards' date=' Nehruji's grand-standing preceded that event.[/quote'] The first vote came in 1948, what grand-standing are you on about? By the way I find it fascinating that you(and BB) fail to realize that USA could not do business with a "Socialist" India but was more than happy to get in bed with "Communist" China. Remember the whole Nixon-Kissinger endeavours? Admit it, it was never about economic philosphy anyway. xx

[The Outsider]

How that happens' date=' please enlighten me. How will our stance in talibani-type will empower the other two..[/quote'] US funds are a major driving force for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Once the US has reduced the power of Taliban to the extent that they don't feel any immediate threat they will leave. Our support of those policies will play a part in giving rise to an enemy ten times more powerful than Taliban right across our border and the US won't give a flying fack. Thats how their modus operandi has been in the past. It's only when Pakistan will start targeting US again that they will pay any attention to the region. Given the recent economic dependence of US industries on India, India should ideally be looking to get the maximum out of US rather than playing the Hindi-US bhai bhai slogan. We haven't even been able to get a SINGLE terrorist out of Pakistan till date.

[Gaurav]

Some good posts. Bottom walli line ye hai ki India should think about it's own interest. Which for me means maintaining good relationship with everyone minus the countries that are out to get us. So we should buy our arms from France, UK, Russia, US (depending on small print), Germany, Israel. We should be no ones side kick/kutiya. It's useless to blame US or UK for our current situation. We have been independent for more that 50 years and it's time that we sort our country out. The most glaring fact is that our politicians are useless bunch! I won't be surprised if some of them are on foreign governments pay roll :hysterical: UN is a failed organization so we need to do whatever it takes to look after our own country. We don't need to go to any chachaji to score points. US, UN, UK don't owe us anything and we don't owe them anything either. Look no one messes with China because they don't allow anyone to mess with them. Same way we need to be strong instead of walking around like bikhari and asking for friendship and support :wink_smile:

[Gaurav]

Getting back on topic- Interesting article on BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6267194.stm Militant Islam's broad appeal

The news that many of the suspects in the failed car bomb attacks in Britain are medical doctors from the Middle East has shocked many and raised questions about connections between class, education and militant Islam....

[Lurker]

http://www.gharib.demon.co.uk/unres/res9.htm .... although I didnt go through all of them ... please enlighten me as to how the USA helped Pak in the Kashmir issue. PS : What did the Soviets do to help us ?

Its rather simple. USA was helping directly in making Kashmir an International issue. Every single resolution was either brought in by USA or had tacid support of USA, as the votes clearly suggest. This obviously is completely against Indian stand which goes as Kashmir being a two-party issue with no room for mediation. What did Soviet Union do? Well here are a few things the ertwhile USSR did: 1) Vetoed the Scurity Council Resolution on Kashmir in 1962 2) Vetoed the Security Council Resolution on Goa(based on Portugal's complaint for Indian Forces in Goa) in 1961. 3) Vetoed on Security Council Resolution on Indo-Pak war on Bangladesh in 1971. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm I did not have enough time to do more search but if I had to make a guess I would bet my dollar that USA/UK would have been against India on every single one of these.

Talk to a Kashmiri Pandit he will tell you ... ofcourse you can read any no.of books on our history.... Are you seriously trying to compare the USA and the Islamic rulers ? Its not a new thing to me ... but I just want to confirm.

Sorry BB you are in no position to talk about USA when you have no clue on their past history regarding Kashmir! Had USA had its way, and had your hated Commies not stood up, India would have possibly lost Kashmir by now.You have all the Security Resolution to give you the info regarding this. xxx

[CC1981]

It is categorically FALSE that US went to support Pakistan because Nehru had a socialist platform. US-India relations were pretty rough in the early years because while Roosevelt was all for independence of the colonies, Trueman was actually AGAINST independence of India and his hardcore christian background made him prefer the monotheistic Pakistan over the 'heathen' India. The reader should realize that just like fundie muslims consider christians/jews as 'dhimmi' and slightly better than us 'idolators', Christianity has pretty much the *same* perspective biblically ! They all consider each other to be better than us because we are 'totally against their God' while those guys pretty much differ on the 'fine print' (ie, who is more 'right' about the common Allah/God of Abraham). For two, it is also utterly FALSE that Indian economy was ruined by Nehruism. What is a fact ( and i can garantee that our saffron-wadi chest thumpers have no clue about this one) is that Indian Rupee was the cause of India's financial bankruptcy. It is a little known fact that at the time of independence, the Indian rupee was the currency used not only in India & Pakistan but ALSO in Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain & Kuwait. This and the lack of FER right after independence put extreme pressure on the rupee ( the root of gold smuggling out of india in the 50s & 60s), which forced the RBI to devalue the rupee. When Rupee was devalued( going from being pegged at 1US$=7 Rupee to 1US$=25 Rupee) thats when these gulf countries started their own currency but India was pretty fracked. This is the root of failed economic situation in the 60s, not Nehru's mismanagement. Infact, Nehru's five-year plans were extremely successful in the beginning (before Rupee was devalued). Oh lets and get another fact straight - US is the *ONLY* country to enter Indian territory with a nuke running hot and pointing towards an Indian city. It was the Russians who saved us there and that fact should never be forgotten - but ofcourse it is by our NRI SKCs of America. PS: India-Britain relations after Independence was pretty decent and much better than with the US- Lord Mountbatten ensured that with his extremely influential reach into UK political and royal circles.

[CC1981]

CC there is a reason why Canada is called the most dhimmi PC country in the world. Even then the muslims wanted Sharia law as Canadian law was not completely to their liking. Wasn't a major muslim terrorist attack foiled in Southern Ontario last year (home grown)? The dhimmi PC attitude makes ZERO impression on ROP followers.

My point has been made- i do not wish to go around in circles. The bottomline is, you by discriminating using the ROP and non-RoP line is adding fuel to the fire and detrimental to India. So your perspective is not of a help to India but to her detriment.

[CC1981]

So we should buy our arms from France, UK, Russia, US (depending on small print), Germany, Israel. We should be no ones side kick/kutiya.

Our major weapons trading partners have been Russia, France & Israel- we should keep it that way and it'd be the height of stupidity to buy arms from the US- they are the country who's arms come with the most 'strings attached'. They have a long history of selling some top-quality arms for a zillion dollars and then twisting your arm over its maintanance & refurbishing. And right now, US has nothing to offer us that we want. They wont offer the M1A1 Abrams tank or any of their Nimitz class ACs ,any of their nuclear subs or any of their MIRVs. Thats the only things we need on a military basis. On Air-Force front, we only need the Apache- which the US again, wont sell to us. All they'd do is keep offering us their F-16s because now they are phasing out F-16s and the MiG-29 & Su-30MKI are a zillion times better than the F-16. Sure, we could use the JSF/F-22 but US wont sell us that. Plus US *never* sells to anyone except Israel with full tech transfer. Russia on the other hand sells us the planes & the tech. For eg, India now KNOWS how to build one of the best attack aircrafts in the world (Su-30MKI) because Russia sold us the tech as well. America would *never* sell us the blueprints of the F-16. Bottomline, India would be making a huge mistake to enter into arms-relations with the US.

[Ram]

And right now, US has nothing to offer us that we want.

Nope.. we got plenty to purchase from the US , if we want. Primary among them is the C-130 transport plane. The US seems to be willing to sell them to India. And there is also the Phalcon AWACS system , the arrow anti-missile system ( yes they are technically Israeli , but Israel wouldnt dare sell them without US consent) And we are over-reliant on Russia for our defence supplies, which is never a good thing. The Russians arent exactly the philanthrophic type either. They dragged their feet in the sukhoi tech transfer till they got the deal with terms they had wanted.

[CC1981]

Primary among them is the C-130 transport plane. The US seems to be willing to sell them to India.

My point is, there is nothing *that* necessary we need from the US that they'd be willing to sell us. In terms of armaments & transport vehicles, Russian hardware is adequate. I dont see much problem using the Antonovs or Ilyushins over the C-130. You do have a point about Israeli hardware though- but in terms of foreign policy, Israel is more independent than you think.

The Russians arent exactly the philanthrophic type either

Never said they were. No-one is in the weapons world. My point is, Russia is a more worthwhile purchase than US is. US will sell you the hardware and then insist that you use US personnel for maintainance and US still retaining the technological blueprints. Russians will posture around for more moolah but at the end of the day, they dont mind selling the blueprints and the whole nine yards to us Indians. It makes far more sense from a political & business concept to trade with someone who will sell you the plane, the factory, the maintanance equipment & the blueprints over someone who will just sell you the aircraft & have you by the balls- for everytime something breaks down/has to be upgraded, you run back to America for help. Ofcourse trading with Americans pisses off the Russians- its less of a market for them if India buys from the US- it makes no sense to go to a store that'll give you less for your money AND piss off your trusty store that will give you the whole deal ! In a war-time scenario, it is incredibly more advantageous for you if you have the techonlogy. If tomorrow we have an India-China air war and we had US bult F-16s, we wouldnt be as aggressive in our strategy. Simply because then to us, we have a *finite* # of aircrafts for this war- if we have 150 F-16s, then thats it- each one lost is irreplacable for the war- US certainly isnt gonna clear its production line to build fighter jets for India on the double. But with Su-30s, we can build the damn thing ourself- we can get HAL and other industries in India to pump out aircrafts as fast as they can- its such a *huge* advantage to have ! France is a pretty good military trading partner with India too and IMO, India's foreign policy towards France should be the strongest in the western world. Bottomline is, we do not NEED the US type military. We will probably never fight the US on our own and if we get our indegenous military scene up & developed using Russian,French & Israeli tech, we will be more than a match (technologically) for China. Thats all India has to worry about militarily- to get an edge over China. Once that happens, India's domestic scene will calm down a LOT. Most of the money trail for anti-indian activities lead to the MIddle East, China and US.

[Ram]

My point is' date=' there is nothing *that* necessary we need from the US that they'd be willing to sell us. In terms of armaments & transport vehicles, Russian hardware is adequate. I dont see much problem using the Antonovs or Ilyushins over the C-130. You do have a point about Israeli hardware though- but in terms of foreign policy, Israel is more independent than you think. [/quote'] Nothing that necessary ? The Arrow anti-missle system is HIGH PRIORITY hardware. In a war , it could be a difference between a nuclear bomb dropping into Kolkata , or the missile being intercepted halfway and carnage prevented. The C-130 are the best transport planes in the world. Why not buy it, if the seller is willing ? . And trust me , Israeli arms sales ( atleast the state-of-the-art ones) is remote controlled from Washington. We had this unprecedented indident where Israle signed an agreement with China for the Phalcon AWACS , China even paid $200 million advance and then Israel backed out of the deal coz of american pressure.

Never said they were. No-one is in the weapons world. My point is, Russia is a more worthwhile purchase than US is. US will sell you the hardware and then insist that you use US personnel for maintainance and US still retaining the technological blueprints. Russians will posture around for more moolah but at the end of the day, they dont mind selling the blueprints and the whole nine yards to us Indians. It makes far more sense from a political & business concept to trade with someone who will sell you the plane, the factory, the maintanance equipment & the blueprints over someone who will just sell you the aircraft & have you by the balls- for everytime something breaks down/has to be upgraded, you run back to America for help. Ofcourse trading with Americans pisses off the Russians- its less of a market for them if India buys from the US- it makes no sense to go to a store that'll give you less for your money AND piss off your trusty store that will give you the whole deal !

And this whole issue about the americans being fussy sellers is bit a over-rated i think. Remember , the US is the BIGGEST exporter in the world. If they were bad sellers , so many customers wouldnt be going to them , would they ?

France is a pretty good military trading partner with India too and IMO, India's foreign policy towards France should be the strongest in the western world. Bottomline is, we do not NEED the US type military. We will probably never fight the US on our own and if we get our indegenous military scene up & developed using Russian,French & Israeli tech, we will be more than a match (technologically) for China. Thats all India has to worry about militarily- to get an edge over China. Once that happens, India's domestic scene will calm down a LOT. Most of the money trail for anti-indian activities lead to the MIddle East, China and US.

There is little hope for an indigenous military industry in India. We need too much investment to even set up one and cycle times are ridiculous in the arms industry. With the present geo-political scenario , we cant wait for things to fall into place. And whatever the russians sell to us , they sell to the chinese too , who are are primary enemy. We have to buy american hardware , esp the ones related to missile and anti-aircraft ones.

[Lurker]

It is categorically FALSE that US went to support Pakistan because Nehru had a socialist platform.

Quite correct. I would also say that Socialism is certainly not as much an evil as it is made out to be. At the time India became Independent Socialism was the way even Western countries went. Welfare state was the norm and even UK became a Capitalist country in true sense in the era of Margaret Thatcher. It is prudent to keep in mind that the countries that are often suggested to be the best as per most Human Indexes are often the Socialist countries like Norway etc. Okay granted it is definitely more Capitalist than Nehru Socialist but the key idea of welfare state remains the same. xxx

[CC1981]

Remember , the US is the BIGGEST exporter in the world. If they were bad sellers , so many customers wouldnt be going to them , would they ?

Arrey baba- they are the biggest seller- but there are a lot of tinpot militaries around- you really think that India's requirements and military are comparable to most others ? No- our requirements are far more on the long-range basis than short-range little militaries of the arab world or indonesia ! We are the 4th strongest military power in the world after US,Russia & China- we need far 'more' than little itty-bitty militaries elsewhere ! Most other customers arnt in a collision-course with a super-power like China. And the ones who are (Japan/South Korea/Taiwan) have full US 'protection'. You have little reason to insist on full tech-transfer when its going to be Chile vs Peru in your scenario. Our impending adversary is the third biggest military power currently and will possibly be the 2nd most powerful by the time a confrontation comes. To India's situation, full tech transfer is a must. Its better to settle for a slightly inferior product with full tech transfer than have the best equipment that we cannot build/fix or upgrade! Buying American product is like going to war with the best automatic assault rifle but with your left hand tied behind your back!

The Arrow anti-missle system is HIGH PRIORITY hardware

The arrow is Israeli- i am saying we shouldnt buy American hardware.

The C-130 are the best transport planes in the world. Why not buy it, if the seller is willing ?

Umm so you wanna buy a 100 million dollar plane that you cannot fix, you cannot upgrade & you cannot build in emergency over another plane that maybe slightly inferior but you have total control over. Eh ??!? How does that make any military/business sense ? I dont mind buying 'fire and forget' armaments from the US..

There is little hope for an indigenous military industry in India. We need too much investment to even set up one and cycle times are ridiculous in the arms industry

While i agree we can go a lot further but there is a LOT of hope for indegenous military industry actually. We are in the process of setting up the infrastructure for mass production of top quality fighter jets & subs. As Indian economy rises, we'd be able to invest in the only field we havnt due to financial constraints : R&D. I think your comments are unjustified, especially when HAL is in the process of manufacturing 150 SU-30MKIs with all the necessary equipment.

[Ram]

Arrey baba- they are the biggest seller- but there are a lot of tinpot militaries around- you really think that India's requirements and military are comparable to most others ? No- our requirements are far more on the long-range basis than short-range little militaries of the arab world or indonesia ! We are the 4th strongest military power in the world after US,Russia & China- we need far 'more' than little itty-bitty militaries elsewhere ! Most other customers arnt in a collision-course with a super-power like China. And the ones who are (Japan/South Korea/Taiwan) have full US 'protection'. You have little reason to insist on full tech-transfer when its going to be Chile vs Peru in your scenario.

A lot of tin-pot militaries dont make the US the biggest arms exporter. Its the biggies like Japan , Taiwan , S.Arabia that make big ticket purchases that prop their sales. And its the same collision course which you are talking wrt china that makes it imperative to buy US arms. They have the best technology, they certainly arent going to sell to China. For eg - once the Phalcon AWACS becomes operationel , its expected to completely tilt the air-theatre in a war in south Asia. Its such cutting edge transformationel weapons systems that i say we need to buy from US, not cheap-rate tanks and guns.

The arrow is Israeli- i am saying we shouldnt buy American hardware.

Nope. Arrow is joint project between Israle and US

Umm so you wanna buy a 100 million dollar plane that you cannot fix, you cannot upgrade & you cannot build in emergency over another plane that maybe slightly inferior but you have total control over. Eh ??!? How does that make any military/business sense ?

Again i feel the sentiment that americans are bad sellers is a bit overcooked. I have provided my reasons for why i feel so.

While i agree we can go a lot further but there is a LOT of hope for indegenous military industry actually. We are in the process of setting up the infrastructure for mass production of top quality fighter jets & subs. As Indian economy rises, we'd be able to invest in the only field we havnt due to financial constraints : R&D. I think your comments are unjustified, especially when HAL is in the process of manufacturing 150 SU-30MKIs with all the necessary equipment.

I wish i could share the same sentiment as you do when it comes to indian military industry. India has botched up one important project after another. The Arjun tank was supposed to solve all our problems, but when it rolled out , the army was so unimpressed with it that , we gave Russia an order for 300 T-90 tanks. The missile program has been so sluggish that some western analysts claim that PaK is avctually ahead of us in that regard. The Agni-3 missile test failed once and there were secvere problems with the re-entry. The update on the LCA tejas is even more depressing. Do you know that according to initial estimates , the first full squadron of tejas should be operationel by 2008 ? We arent even CLOSE to it. And HAL making sukhois has got more to do with the tech blue-prints the russians handed to us , rather than our tech prowees. I aint saying we shouldnt invest in indiginous R&D . I am just saying - This is not the time for it. We have to make some big ticket purchases, NOW

[CC1981]

Its the biggies like Japan , Taiwan , S.Arabia that make big ticket purchases that prop their sales.

And they are tinpots compared to the Indian military !

. I have provided my reasons for why i feel so.

And i think its dumb to buy a slightly better product that we cant fix, we cant built and we cant upgrade. Sorry but it makes NO logic at all - the fact is, US wont do a full tech transfer with us. Whether they are the biggest arms sellers in the planet is irrelevant- as i said, most of their weapons are going to countries who dont have the NEED to be fully functional militaries - Chile, Peru,Saudi,Japan, Brazil, Argentina,Canada, Mexico-African nations, Indonesia, etc. added up makes US the biggest arms exporter- now tell me how those nations have an absolute necessity of full tech transfer like India does ! Their oppoition are vastly inferior military than China ! Even Saudi & Japan or Korea dont NEED full tech transfer- they have binding agreement with the US for their defence- a luxury we do not enjoy. We are on our own and thus we NEED to be fully capable in producing, fixing and upgrading the technology we acquire.

The missile program has been so sluggish that some western analysts claim that PaK is avctually ahead of us in that regard. The Agni-3 missile test failed once and there were secvere problems with the re-entry. The update on the LCA tejas is even more depressing. Do you know that according to initial estimates , the first full squadron of tejas should be operationel by 2008 ? We arent even CLOSE to it. And HAL making sukhois has got more to do with the tech blue-prints the russians handed to us , rather than our tech prowees.

But a LOT of our R&D problem are solved by full tech transfer ! India doesnt have a history of significant R&D in military and it stands to reason that most of our 'first time projects' are going to be slow progress- America or Russia wernt exactly turning out the perfect jet aircrafts from the day they decieded to build it. Having full tech transfer lets us 'catch up' a LOT in the R&D sector. Instead of India buying an F-16 and banging its head for years to figure out a passive phased array radar in a mobile setting, we can LEARN everything we need to know from full tech transfer of the radar from Su-30MKI. So instead of wasting years trying to figure out stuff on our own that others have already figured out, we catch up and 'get up to date' much quicker through tech-transfer. I agree our military industry is pretty lame but it is improving and a very nascent industry to speak of. Militarily, tech-transfer is the quickest and best way to military self-succificiency and for that if we have to forego slightly better American hardware that we cannot build,fix or upgrade, its a much better choice. You are seeing it only from a pure item-use perspective without the strategic value of that item and its long-term viability in protracted war. Your product could be slightly better than mine on 1v1 basis- but if you fight me in a scenario where you cannot build any more, cannot fix, cannot upgrade your stuff while i can do all of the mentioned, i will easily win the war. It wouldnt matter that my tank is slightly worse than your tank or my plane is slightly worse than your's- i can handle losing 2 for 1 or more- for each one you destroy, i can replace it within a short time- each one you lose is a permanent loss to your military for this war. I kill most of your planes,its game over for you. You kill a lot of mine, i replace a lot of mine. Do you not see the incredible disadvantage of going up against a military behemoth like China and have such severe restrictions in our military strategy & capability ?!? I agree that we have to make some big ticket purchase- but *NOT* from America when America wont give us the technological blueprints. It does not serve India's purpose in anything but 'fire and forget armaments' to buy stuff we cannot fix,maintain,build or upgrade. Sorry but its a sh!t deal, given that the product superiority is marginal in most direct comparisons with French-Russian products. Your argument that US is the biggest arms exporter is irrelevant here because its exporting principles does NOT suit India as well as French or Russian stuff does. If you care that much about acquiring US hardware, then you should be advocating the use of professional Indian workers/technical personnel as spies for India the way China does/did in the 90s.

[Ram]

And they are tinpots compared to the Indian military !

Are you sure ? You label S.Arabia, Japan as a "tiny-pot" military ? Check the numbers , you would be pleasantly surprised. They spend as much on miliraty spending on we do , if not more.

Chile, Peru,Saudi,Japan, Brazil, Argentina,Canada, Mexico-African nations, Indonesia, etc. added up makes US the biggest arms exporter- now tell me how those nations have an absolute necessity of full tech transfer like India does !

This argument that you need a full-tech transfer with the buyer ONLY if you have an immediate or an impending threat ( like India has from China) is itself is flawed. When I sign a contract worth billions of dollars , I would try to get every pence out of it , irrespective of my geopolitical situation. So in your opinion , If India and China became friends all of a sudden, then you wouldnt insist for a full tech transfer in our military deals then is it ?

So instead of wasting years trying to figure out stuff on our own that others have already figured out, we catch up and 'get up to date' much quicker through tech-transfer. I agree our military industry is pretty lame but it is improving and a very nascent industry to speak of.Militarily, tech-transfer is the quickest and best way to military self-succificiency and for that if we have to forego slightly better American hardware that we cannot build,fix or upgrade, its a much better choice.

You seem to suggest as though EVERY purchase we make from Russia comes along with a tech-transfer. Apart from the Sukhois, can you point 2 other siginifacnt piece of hardware that came with a complete tech transfer component ? If you arent able to do this , then your argument that Russia is a better seller just because they are ok to tech-transfer will fall into pieces.

You are seeing it only from a pure item-use perspective without the strategic value of that item and its long-term viability in protracted war.

You gotto be kidding me. Some of the weapons we are talking about here ( Phacon AWACS , Arrow Anti-missile) are the ones that will give India a HUGE strategic advantage. I would rather buy those weapons instead of just staying away due to maintanence fears. These weapons could make all the difference in a war, trust me.

[CC1981]

Are you sure ? You label S.Arabia, Japan as a "tiny-pot" military ? Check the numbers , you would be pleasantly surprised. They spend as much on miliraty spending on we do , if not more.

They spend more dollars. They do a lot more exercises. They buy a lot of extremely expensive shiny glittery F-15s with no real regard for overall military. Indias military is easily superior to Japanese or Saudi military- we are nowhere as lopsided. Saudis have 600 F-16s which cost them more than the entire Air Force of India costs but they have no navy or army to speak of. In a full-scale war, Saudis dont stand a chance against us on their own. What the US did to Iraqi military- we'd be doing a similar job to the Saudi military if we ever clashed. Japan is a special case- they have special rules & treaty with the US militarily. They can build a lot of stuff on their own but they keep buying US hardware due to treaties it signed at the end of WWII in surrender.

When I sign a contract worth billions of dollars , I would try to get every pence out of it , irrespective of my geopolitical situation. So in your opinion , If India and China became friends all of a sudden, then you wouldnt insist for a full tech transfer in our military deals then is it ?

Err no..explain how you are getting the full value if you cannot fix,upgrade or build what you just bought. I dont get your india-china question. My point is,from OUR perspective, full tech transfer beats the pants off a slightly better product that we can only use very conservatively.

You seem to suggest as though EVERY purchase we make from Russia comes along with a tech-transfer. Apart from the Sukhois, can you point 2 other siginifacnt piece of hardware that came with a complete tech transfer component ? If you arent able to do this , then your argument that Russia is a better seller just because they are ok to tech-transfer will fall into pieces.

T-90 tank, MiG-29 and we are getting the complete blueprints of their Aircraft Carrier we are purchasing (Which is FAR superior than our currently operational AC). We also have full tech transfer for Kilo-class submarines. We also have a full technological collaraboration ongoing with Russia for designing a replacement for the An-32 Aircraft fleet we have.

You gotto be kidding me. Some of the weapons we are talking about here ( Phacon AWACS , Arrow Anti-missile) are the ones that will give India a HUGE strategic advantage. I would rather buy those weapons instead of just staying away due to maintanence fears. These weapons could make all the difference in a war, trust me.

What are their Russian/French equivalent - you will find that those arnt much inferior in quality either. As far as missile technology comes- i am more than happy to stick to Russian built missiles. They are atleast 10 years ahead of the US in missile technology and always have been in the last 30-40 years ( ever since Brezhnev decieded to neutralize the superior US navy by building technological superiority in its missile program). You do realize that for almost every missile America has, Russia has a better one ? SSN -sunburn, Brahmos, etc. are superior to any other missile in US arsenal. Russia also has superiority in MIRV technology - which is the holy grail of missile tech. My bottomline is if you are buying something you cannot fix, cannot maintain, cannot build and cannot upgrade, it is a bum deal. Its like buying something but letting the US have us by our balls. It gets HUGE political leverage in India by our dependency on US maintainance/production because we are simply end-use consumers if we buy from the US, totally dependent on it for supply, upgrades and everything, instead of being independent.