Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ

Re: Romairr #303

(Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence)

``This is exactly what Pakistan has been doing.``

Let us be honest here (and not incredibly naive while making statements like that) -- the missiles (Ghauri et al) are not defensive weapons. Of course, the same applies to India. Also, the grotesque public celebration of offensive capabilities (ie. plexiglass models of missiles, Chagai models in traffic circles) is anything but demonstrative of a restrained defensive posture. Neither is the export of jehad nor Kargil are `defensive` operations. It is not as if India walks on water, but kindly do not insult my intelligence by a selective culling of the facts. I am amongst those Indians on Chowk who desire friendly stable relations with Pakistan (thus my suggestion to India to help Pak write off foreign debt in exchange for mutual threat reduction), but you seem to be having a difficult time in persuading even me.

Romair,

{{{But my guess is that when a country pays billions (yes billions, not millions) of dollars to buy these airplanes, they usually buy them because they want to attack someone. This is dangerous enough if the country buying the planes is rich. It is even more dangerous, if the country buying the planes is poor. Since the later shows even a heightened desire to attack someone. Wouldn`t you agree?}}}

I`ve ALWAYS maintained Indian leaders are stupid megalomaniacs who would rather have a huge military than concentrate on reducing poverty.

However; please understand my ``spin`` as perceived by the ``Advani`` types on the Indian side. Alas, there are too many. Pakistan doesnt have a shortage of hawks either. As far as most Indians are concerned, the entire Pak military apparatus is the biggest hawk.

They believe Pakistan is hell bent on wresting Kashmir from India, by any means--fair or foul. They DONT trust Musharraf or the Pak military. To them, Kargil was a duplicious ``stab in the back`` after the Lahore declaration. Thats why they are very paranoid about wording of any ``declaration``.

Siachen? BS--if Siachen was such an issue--resolve it in continuing negotiations. The way the world responded to Kargil (including your all-weather friend China) was vindication of their views of Pakistani duplicity. ``Spin`` it any way you want--doesnt make a difference.

Pakistan, by itself, is small potatoes. But in an all out combat scenario, Pakistan has the luxury of dipping into their master`s (Saudis) bottomless pockets & China`s generosity, not to mention military support from other Islamic nations.

So, the best policy is to hedge your bets. Continue to talk, but carry a big stick. That will make Pakistan realise they cant dictate the agenda of summits, with the implied threat that if Indians dont comply, then they will have to deal with a ``world famous`` military`s stick. They feel India`s military buildup is what made Musharraf concede that the Kashmir problem cant be solved militarily.

Here`s a point of irreconcilable difference. Pakistan isnt arming right now because they cant AFFORD to arm--not because they dont want to. If India is faring better economically, this is the BEST time to invest in a strong military (acc to Indian hawks). Pakistan has ALWAYS been hostile to India. Pakistan is obssessed with Kashmir. If they get half a chance of scoring points with a limited war, they`ll do it. If Pakistan gets a gusher of oil tomorrow, the first thing they`ll do is buy weapons. Never EVER give Pakistan an opportunity to come to a summit in a position of strenght. A strong offense is the best defense.

Just as Pakistan thinks they have the ``moral high ground`` in regards to Kashmir; India thinks it holds the SAME moral highground. There`s NO point in debating that. Its an IRRECONCILABLE difference.

Look at it from the standpoint of ``realpolitick``--if Pakistan is SO morally justified; why has`nt a SINGLE country in the world backed Pakistan vociferously?! Why doesnt Indian ``genocide`` in Kashmir raise ANY hackles in Islamic countries ?(pl dont tell me about OIC ``resolutions``). This is a question I`ve raised repeatedly on Chowk; but NO Pakistani has been able to give me a good answer.

I`m eager to hear your spin on that:)

When it comes to self interest, countries generally put politics on the back burner.

India actually had dealings with the Israeli Govt. BEFORE we established diplomatic relations with them - specifically getting Israeli training for bodyguards of VIPs. (We have a dismal record here.)

And...so did Jordan.

And, in fact, Iran still doesn`t have diplomatic relations with the Zionist Entity, but guess who facilitated the Iran-Contra arms deal? That`s right...the Israeli Govt.

As for how Indian Muslim feel about India buying Israeli arms - probably not thrilled, but not heart broken either. If India needs them, and Israel is selling them, well...Who should India have bought them from, Afghanistan?

Shammi #276: ``God bless Chowk for sparing us a 15,000 word long article on strategic analysis.``

I am surprised you read all my replies and actually count the words. Just ignore them, if you don`t like them. That is another way to spare yourself. However, if you are going to read them, then you have only yourself to blame, and you should not complain.

``If you buttress air defences with expensive aircraft, India will factor that in and use 100 (or the appropriate number to ensure mission success) aircraft instead of 30.``

This is an interesting take on the problem, i.e. Pakistan should not enhance its defensive aircraft, becuase India will then furthur enhance its offensive capabilities. What should Pakistan do if India enhances its offensive capabilities first (which is generally what happens)? Just sit there and do nothing. Don`t you think the country that is enhancing its offensive capabilities is at fault, and not the country that is enhancing its defensive capabilities to counter those offensive capabilities.

Pakistan`s defence capabilities are always in response to the offensive increases made by India. Never the other way around. For example, India buys the latest series of attack aircraft, then Pakistan buys cheaper versions of defensive aircraft to protect itself. You argument seems to state that Pakistan should not even buy the defensive aircraft, because India will then buy twice as many offensive aircraft. Wouldn`t a better argument be that India should not buy the offensive aircraft in the first place?

``It is therefore best to ensure that the cost of victory is higher than any perceived gains (a la Tahmed321 or Fuzair) rather than spend to ensure a leakproof defence.``

If you are stating that Pakistan should go with a nuclear defence as its first line of defence, then I think that would be too dangerous. There will be a nuclear war at the first provocation. Nuclear defense should be the last line of defence, never the first.

``Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence``

This is exactly what Pakistan has been doing. Nearly every single aircraft in the PAF is designed for point defence and close air support. The PAF doesn`t have a single bomber, or even a plane designed solely for deep interdiction. The only attack aircraft it has is the outdated A-5. And that too is only used for ground attacks on bridges etc. to provide support to the ground troops.

When I state that Pakistan should buy aircraft, I mean only defensive aircraft, like the F-7. This is all Paksitan buys anyways. It does not buy strategic bombers or strike planes. Defensive aircraft are the best way to defend against attacking aircraft. SAMs can never stop all attacking aircraft.

Pakistan has pretty much been relying on a defensive war, for quite a while. It has a completely defensive military. Infact, apart from 2 Army strike corps, it really has not strategic offensive capabilities. The Air Force, as I stated, consists of F-7s, Mirage III, Mirage IV, F-6, A-5 and a few F-16s. None of these is by design offensive.

Now if India would start relying on defence only also (something I have been stating for ages), South Asia would be a better place. However, just in the past two years India has bought T-90 tanks, Mirage-2000s, Su-27, a $1 billion deal with Britain, $2 billion dollar deal with Israel, a $3 billion deal with the USSR, its own LCA program, ICBMs, working on putting nuclear missiles on subs, a tri-platform nuclear strategy, coming out of the nuclear closet, increasing its military budget by 14% and around 23% in successive years etc. All of this, when it already had a military four times the size of the Pakistan military.

If you forget for a moment that you are Indian, and look at this objectively, who do you think is feuling the arms race? Can you name one major weapons system Pakistan has bought during this whole stage that India has been on a shopping spree? Infact, Pakistan froze its military budget last year, and has actually decreased it this year; while India has made record increases.

I am hoping you have the capability to criticize your own govt., and not to view every comment passed by a Pakistani as an attack. If there are factual errors in my statistics, please point them out. Otherwise, I think you are making a mistake by blaming the arms race equally on both India and Pakistan.

India needs to stop its arms purchases, and bring its defence budget to at most twice that of Pakistan`s. Until that time, the least Pakistan can do is to buy defensive aircraft to protect itself.

jay,

So you were at HAL. I guess we are birds of the same feather. I was at ISRO for some time. Studied at IIT-M. Did you by chance know Prof. Balaraman? He was employed at HAL for a while, before joining academics.

regards,

re romair

I was not being self-righteous, just facetious. It is incredible to see so many would-be air marshals toiling away their time on keyboards with painstaking details of obsolete aircraft and imaginary superiority/inferiority complexes. Kind of like a midtown bar on Monday nights during football season.

re soysauce

``The only explanation i have is that he is a racist and hates the palestinians intensely. I don`t see what options palestinians really have. They have all but been abandoned by the other arabs and the suicide bombs are acts of extreme desperation. I have been to israel and collaborate with israeli scientists and the racism of the israeli state even they`d acknowledge.``

Because we can`t beat him and he`s tweaked the tail of every adversary doesn`t mean he is racist. Palestinians had had a lot of options but as a great man once said, ``Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity``. Gandhiji said it well that good ends ought to be achieved by good means: suicide bombs aren`t exactly those good means. If Israelis are racist, trust me they are no more so than most of the Arabs who despise their own `ummah` bretheren as `miskeen` and prostrate themselves at the mention of the European or North American. Ariel SHaron is a blunt soldier and not a member of Amnesty International. But he is no more brutal than Yasir Arafat, Abu Nidal, and the rest of the crowd who get political orgasms by blowing up women and children at airports. In fact, Gen Sharon is quite more lenient with the PLO/Hamas terrorists than either Hafez Assad or King Hussein(the Arab rulers simply liquidated them en masse) had been. THe difference, my friend, is a rudimentary and grudging nod towards this thing called public opinion.

A humble note to all the `experts` on aviation technology here:

Poverty and hunger remain the biggest challenge

Vajpayee and Musharraf might be better advised to focus on the twin issues of poverty and hunger plaguing both countries as more often than not, these are the ones to trigger off despair and militancy, says Devinder Sharma

http://www.tehelka.com/aspsite/rightstory.asp?id1=commentary&id2=politics&id3=HEADLINES&id4=20000624584&fname=com071801poverty1.htm

Romair # 293:

``I am unable to understand such an argument.``

..you are able only to understand arguments which conform to pakistan`s POV..anything making that POV uncomfortable is of course not understandeable, and usually ignored...

..here is how Indian muslims are important to the Kashmir debate...since the BASIC INTELLECTUAL PRINCIPLE for kashmir acceding to pakistan is TNT (``unfinished agenda of partition`` et al), the presence in India of a greater number of muslims than pakistan, as also the breakup of unified pakistan, have all demolished that half-baked concept. Its gone kaput, you cant milk it no more.

..now the intelligent guy you are you will use other tracks:

1/ the UN resolutions:

there are several hundred UN resolutions that have not been acted upon....infact more UN resolutions have not been acted upon than otherwise...btw you may also know that the whole UN thing started because India took it to the UN, and it was Nehru who voluntarily proposed plebiscite...also that the UN resolutions have 3 parts- the first of which is that pakistan vacate the part of kashmir it illegally occupies and return custody to Indian forces, which never happened...had the plebiscite happened then, india would have overwhelmingly won!...and now, after so many internationally recognized elections in kashmir if you wake up and decide to ask for UN resolutions, its a bit too late...

..its not a legally binding argument at all - as pakistani columnists will have us believe, and no less a person than the UN Secretary General has said that IN pakistan.

2/ ``according to the Kashmiri people`s wishes``-

this, now that legal and intellectual arguments are over, is the moral argument usually put forward...i have touched on this earlier and if you require it, i can type a whole page again...the bottomline is that everytime a population is discontented you cannot have redrawing of national boundaries...and just because blackmail is attempted through the spread of terror masterminded by Pakistan, it does not lend any further credibility to it...

3/ india is not secular:

...maybe you wouldnt say that..because you`d yourself mentioned that India is legally and constitutionally secular..

..the other mischief that occasionally happens is a pure law and order problem..

..now let me tell you how the whole problem will be solved- you stop all those terrorist training camps on your side of the border, or we will fry all those paki-afghan-sudanese anyway- similar to what happened in punjab, which is to be followed by a full-scale election...then see who remembers the `problem`...you may not agreeto this, but once upon a time Punjab looked much worse- and today the whole Punjab has forgotten that as a nightmare..

..wait and see,here too pakistan will be left twiddling its thumbs....

Regarding Palestine:

...for a long time, india was one of the most powerful supporters of Palestine and PLO...and Arafat knew that the credibility India lent to their cause as a secular democracy was much more than all arab/islamic autocracies-dictatorships-theocracies put together...infact India persistently rejected all israeli and US (and Zubin Mehta`s) pressure to recognize the state of israel till ?1994...that was a time india had started re-evaluating everything in terms of its self-interest and realized that we could not carry on all socialistic battles of the world...this is a fact realized by all thinking indians, including muslims...meantime we had also started to understand better how foreign-sponsored terrorism can affect a democracy...

...we still officially support the PLO viewpoint, although its intensity has diminished since the recognition of Israel...

...if you had just droned about religious jehad against infidel atrocities, i would have let it pass...but you have this irritating habit of couching your rants in humanitarian jargon and thinking evrybody is impressed...

...now go ahead, ignore this post...

Re: Romair #293

``I am surprised at the support of large defence purchases amongst Indians.``

If you had read my post #252 carefully, and read the ending you would have found that I wrote, ``India should have negotiated with Pakistan to settle differences and reduce tensions in exchange for retiring the large Pakistani external debt, instead of feeding the military-industrial complexes in far-off Israel. Surely, that money is better spend in S. Asia rather than in far-off locales.`` I was suggesting that India use that money to GIVE it to Pakistan instead. Please read carefully, take a few deep breaths before firing off a response.

``Do you think the Indian Muslims, as a community, support India purchasing arms from Israel? A simple, ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice.``

Do you think that all Chowk posters are fanatics, reasonable, or fundamentalists? A simple ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice. It is precisely because such answers are difficult to solicit that you have institutions like Parliament. Why is this even an issue (Israel). Does Turkey not have extensive defence ties with Israel? Did you question that?

``I was never averse to this (soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding Kashmir)``.

Yes, you were. The point that I was making is that you want Indian Muslims to give their opinion to you in simple ``yes`` or ``no`` terms selectively when YOU deem it necessary. E.g. you want to know how they feel regarding the Israel deal, but NOT regarding Kashmir.

Shammi

Pakistan is completely capable of defending itself, but I doubt that we have any offensive capability, nor are we interested in such. We are not the nation in the Subcontinent which harbors expansionist designs.

As for your joint command proposal

1) Cabinet Mission Plan was rejected by the Congress Party.

2) Jinnah`s proposal for Joint defence commitee was rejected by the Indian Govt.

3) Pakistan is a sovereign state.

4) Unlike you and I, the rest of the world watches Pakistan and India as deadly enemies and eternal rivals.

-YLH

Ali dear boy,

I believe if Indians say 4, and Pakistanis say 6, the truth has to be in the middle... 5!



:)

-YLH

PS Romair, Maybe you can also shed some light for our friend Manoj, armed with Bharat Rhakshak figures, the PAF`s role in the Afghan war at the same time.

Re: Romair #301

But can aircraft really be used with any degree of effectiveness at those altitudes? While the main battleground is lower, some of the posts are at about 19,000 feet or so.

Regards.

Manoj #281: The PAF is not involved in Siachen, and for good reason. When the Indian forces occupied Siachen, Pakistan had three choices (I am guessing): 1) Raise it to a full-fledged war, like Kargil 2) Don`t do anything 3) Create a ground stalemate.

Pakistan decided to go with 3. Going with 2 could have resulted in India, ``ending up in Sakardu`` soon. Pakistan did not want to go with 1, because it was fighting battles in Afghanistan with the USSR, and could not afford another open front. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, Pakistan could have gone with 1, but that would have fed right into the Indian plans. India wants to use Siachen to bleed Pakistan. Hence it is happy with a stalemate there. If Pakistan was to up the ante by bringing in aircraft, it would just become a stalemate involving aircraft, i.e. a more expensive stalemate, thus fitting in better with the overall Indian plan.

So a ground-based stalemate is where everything is at. If air power were used, Siachen would make Kargil look like a minor conflict. Imagine aircraft attacking ground troops on top of a glacier.

anarayan #279: For some strange reason you are attempting to prove that the Mig-21 BIS is superior to the F-7, regardless of the weapon systems it may carry. That doesn`t make sense to me, since they are essentially the same design. That is why I stated in my original reply:

``If the Indian Mig-21 has not been upgraded with NATO systems, then it is probably quite inferior to the F-7. If it has been upgraded, then it would be in the same league.``

So if the IAF Mig-21 has been enhanced to the same level or superior levels to the F-7, then it is the same or better, respectively; otherwise it is not (since they are inherently the same design),i.e. if one puts the Magic II missile on the BIS, alongwith the latest avionics, it becomes to superior to an F-7. If the Magic II is on the F-7, with the latest avionics, the F-7 will be better. If you want to claim that the BIS is superior to the F-7, regardless of the type of weapons systems (just because it has the Indian flag painted on it), then I am afraid nothing I will say will convince you, otherwise. Whichever aircraft out of two identical designs with better avionics and better missiles will be the better aircraft. What in this argument do you not understand?

``The refutation of this line of thinking is exactly why the Mig designers created BIS.``

If the Soviets and you are convinced that missiles are not the prefered method of air combat, then good luck to both of you. I think Soviet designs do consider missiles to be the prefered form of air combat. What is the point of getting into close combat if you can shoot someone down with a missile, from a distance?

``Several IAF planes are flying low and shooting up the airport or buildings near civilian areas in pakistan. Passive homing or even active homing will not work well with all the ground clutter. Also you don`t want to miss and hit your own civilians.``

You have presented one very small little scenario. What happens during the remaining 90% of the time. Added to this is the fact that the Mig-21 is not designed for ground attack, so it will not be attacking Pakistani cities. Also, in such a scenario, the airplanes will be targeted by surface to air missiles, not air to air missiles. Air-to-air combat doesn`t occur when aircraft are bombing airports. It occurs before or after this.

``Also the attackers might be turbo-prop bombers (I did say hypothetical) or say one of these new planes with significantly reduced tailpipe IR signature. In these cases you have to engage the enemy at close quarters.``

Heat-seeking missiles are not the only type of missiles. Can you name any turbo-prop bombers that are currenly flying? A bomber, by itself, of any variety, is a sitting duck in front of a fighter, at any altitude. Why would a fighter want to get in close range to it?

``Off course, quite different roles; different like in `AMERICAN Interceptor` and `SOVIET Interceptor`, DUH!``

I fail to see your point. Just because an aircraft has an F in its designation, doesn`t mean it has an identical same role. Please discuss this with pilots who have flown both F-104s and Mig-21s. I believe Pakistan is the only country with pilots who have flown both in active combat.

I would be interested in finding out where your received your fighter training. Do you have any experience in what you are discussing? Either everything I have learnt about flying is wrong, or you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just prolonging a useless argument.

shammi #276 ``Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence...``

Agreed

``...or put their militaries under some sort of joint command.``

Not a good idea - Indian generals might pick up some bad habits of Pakistani generals (like sacking the boss when the boss messes with their airline flights).

shammi #256: I am surprised at the support of large defence purchases amongst Indians.

``Their will on revenues and expenditure is expressed through elected representatives in the Lok Sabha (Parliament). I am sure that you are not foolish enough to suggest a referendum on every inane item of govt. expenditure in a $100 bn budget.``

You have a habit of turning simple questions into legalistic complex arguments. The question was as follows: Do you think the Indian Muslims, as a community, support India purchasing arms from Israel? A simple, ``yes`` or ``no`` would suffice. Whether their will on revenues is expressed through Lok Sabha or through an invisible vote, is a constitutional debate.

It doesn`t effect me either way. I don`t live in India. I am just curious in finding out what the Indian Muslims, as a community, think about India sending all this money to Israel. If no one wants to disclose that information, that is fine, as well. But I despise legalistic arguments to simple questions. So is it yes or is it no. One word, please.

``if I recall correctly, you were very averse to soliciting the opinions of India`s Muslims regarding the negative fallout of Kashmir on their plight.``

I was never averse to this. Infact, I hope India does not take out its anger in Kashmir on the Indian Muslims. That would be terrible. It`s bad enough that the Muslims in Kashmir are suffering due to the actions of the Indian govt. What would India gain from taking it out on the Indian Muslims, as well.

This of course, does not deter from the fact, that the Kashmiris do deserve self-determination (like you and I got), even if the Indian govt. and people start harming Indian Muslims, in retaliation. That is blackmail, by the way, i.e if you don`t stop your freedom struggle, we will start killing people with the same religion in other places, as well. Kashmiris should decide their own future. Indian Muslims should decide their own. My guess would be that Kashmiris will want to separate from India, and the Indian Muslims would want to remain with India.

If there is a negative fallout from the Kashmiri struggle on the Indian Muslims, then it is the people who are carrying out the negative fallout who should be blamed. You seem to be attempting to justify the negative plight, by blaming the Kashmiris. I am unable to understand such an argument.