Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ
AH Amin July 8, 2001
#275 Posted by anarayan on July 18, 2001 1:25:23 am
Romair,
(1)
``In close dogfights, it is not the speed, but the agility and thrust to weight ratio that matters.``
Well, you have finally seen the light. Ok, now listen carefully. For all practical purposes, the F-7 and BIS have same control surfaces, drag profile and weight. But the BIS has 1.5 times the Thrust/Weight ratio of the F-7. Therefore, in a close dogfight the F-7 is no match for the BIS. (Q.E.D)
(2)
The second point is your second point:
``The second point is that missiles are now the prefered way of shooting down airplanes.``
The refutation of this line of thinking is exactly why the Mig designers created BIS. Hypothetical scenario: 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. 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.
(3)
``I don`t remember the statistics, but I think the F-104 has a larger diameter for its engine than the Mig-21. You are comparing two aircraft with two different roles.``
Off course, quite different roles; different like in `AMERICAN Interceptor` and `SOVIET Interceptor`, DUH!
(4)
``Just buy a Russian TV and a Japanese or American TV, and you will get the answer.``
Believe it or not - we had a russian TV once. It was pretty good, compared to a BPL. Had to scrap it when some thing burned out inside - no spare parts.
Jay,
Your good knowledge about Gas Turbines tells me you must have been associated with them in some way.
``For example the compressor cases are welded after assembly, this reduces the weight...``
This Sir, is quite an `inside` knowledge! I`m impressed, to say the least.
``Only in recent times have been an effort to introduce vectored thrust from the engines to increase maneuverability.``
Yes, I read some articles in Aviation Week a few years ago. The projected increase in maneuvrability was `jaw-dropping`.
regards,
(1)
``In close dogfights, it is not the speed, but the agility and thrust to weight ratio that matters.``
Well, you have finally seen the light. Ok, now listen carefully. For all practical purposes, the F-7 and BIS have same control surfaces, drag profile and weight. But the BIS has 1.5 times the Thrust/Weight ratio of the F-7. Therefore, in a close dogfight the F-7 is no match for the BIS. (Q.E.D)
(2)
The second point is your second point:
``The second point is that missiles are now the prefered way of shooting down airplanes.``
The refutation of this line of thinking is exactly why the Mig designers created BIS. Hypothetical scenario: 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. 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.
(3)
``I don`t remember the statistics, but I think the F-104 has a larger diameter for its engine than the Mig-21. You are comparing two aircraft with two different roles.``
Off course, quite different roles; different like in `AMERICAN Interceptor` and `SOVIET Interceptor`, DUH!
(4)
``Just buy a Russian TV and a Japanese or American TV, and you will get the answer.``
Believe it or not - we had a russian TV once. It was pretty good, compared to a BPL. Had to scrap it when some thing burned out inside - no spare parts.
Jay,
Your good knowledge about Gas Turbines tells me you must have been associated with them in some way.
``For example the compressor cases are welded after assembly, this reduces the weight...``
This Sir, is quite an `inside` knowledge! I`m impressed, to say the least.
``Only in recent times have been an effort to introduce vectored thrust from the engines to increase maneuverability.``
Yes, I read some articles in Aviation Week a few years ago. The projected increase in maneuvrability was `jaw-dropping`.
regards,
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#274 Posted by sigalph235 on July 18, 2001 1:25:23 am
As an avowed humanitarian, I feel terrible that all you folks are wringing hands on your keyboards as opposed to working on various air staffs and air war college faculties. Pity, what a waste of human talent. May God give you the opportunity to live your Baron von Richthofen dreams in the hereafter/next life.
#273 Posted by upman7626 on July 17, 2001 8:38:14 pm
sarwari # 255
...let me answer some of your Qs:
a/ if saying India is secular is `self-righteous fanaticism` (whatever that is), there are several s.r.f. here including pakistanis, capt. cecil choudhury included, and a lot of people around the world who do not have any bias towards india...
b/ i consider any state policy that gives preference to one religion over another OFFICIALLY -which will inevitably result in bias against the excluded faiths- to be out of sync with attitudes of the modern, multicultural world. No amount of convenient quotes from such religious texts about how it respects plurality etc. will change this fact....the religion concerned is irrelevant- islam, catholicism or hinduism- such a policy is inferior, if you have to use this word, to a secular polity.
c/ tell me what you assume
d/ your juvenility shows, again
``..it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.``
..if it is your Founder`s Ideals (whats it with these guys about caps!) how come Pakistan is not a secular state?..ok, it must be secular within Islam...so what about Sharia courts, intentional and UNintentional blasphemy punishments, etc?... all Zia`s faults, i know....so how come, if only 1 or 2% of paksitanis are supporting these, paksitanis DONT CHANGE SUCH PRIMITIVE LAWS?
...see, our reality is much better than your founder`s ideals...that poor caricature of a founder, rebel without a cause -who took up the first available cause having absolutely no faith in it...
``You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country..``
..you see, i dont think paksitan is even an OK country..i wish, like you will accuse, this is pure hate..unfortunately for you, it is not..and your latest action hero- Musharaff gives me an idea of how your country will do for the rest of his lifetime...
..you think he`s a great guy?...that precisely is the problem..
..the taleban, and the countries which support it- saudia and Yours- are destined to remain on the periphery of world consciousness, attended only to when it creates sufficient nuisance, to be promptly forgotten again...atleast the saudis have oil-money..
..so rather than tilting at www windmills,get back to your country and do something about it...never has another country more needed some sense drilled into it....
...let me answer some of your Qs:
a/ if saying India is secular is `self-righteous fanaticism` (whatever that is), there are several s.r.f. here including pakistanis, capt. cecil choudhury included, and a lot of people around the world who do not have any bias towards india...
b/ i consider any state policy that gives preference to one religion over another OFFICIALLY -which will inevitably result in bias against the excluded faiths- to be out of sync with attitudes of the modern, multicultural world. No amount of convenient quotes from such religious texts about how it respects plurality etc. will change this fact....the religion concerned is irrelevant- islam, catholicism or hinduism- such a policy is inferior, if you have to use this word, to a secular polity.
c/ tell me what you assume
d/ your juvenility shows, again
``..it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.``
..if it is your Founder`s Ideals (whats it with these guys about caps!) how come Pakistan is not a secular state?..ok, it must be secular within Islam...so what about Sharia courts, intentional and UNintentional blasphemy punishments, etc?... all Zia`s faults, i know....so how come, if only 1 or 2% of paksitanis are supporting these, paksitanis DONT CHANGE SUCH PRIMITIVE LAWS?
...see, our reality is much better than your founder`s ideals...that poor caricature of a founder, rebel without a cause -who took up the first available cause having absolutely no faith in it...
``You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country..``
..you see, i dont think paksitan is even an OK country..i wish, like you will accuse, this is pure hate..unfortunately for you, it is not..and your latest action hero- Musharaff gives me an idea of how your country will do for the rest of his lifetime...
..you think he`s a great guy?...that precisely is the problem..
..the taleban, and the countries which support it- saudia and Yours- are destined to remain on the periphery of world consciousness, attended only to when it creates sufficient nuisance, to be promptly forgotten again...atleast the saudis have oil-money..
..so rather than tilting at www windmills,get back to your country and do something about it...never has another country more needed some sense drilled into it....
#272 Posted by shammi on July 17, 2001 7:51:48 pm
Re: Romair #264
``I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru``
God bless Chowk for sparing us a 15,000 word long article on strategic analysis.
Regarding your hypothetical Indian attack scenario with 30 aircraft, Tahmed321`s advice is still sound. 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. Thus, your logic will quickly collapse. 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. Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence, or put their militaries under some sort of joint command.
``I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru``
God bless Chowk for sparing us a 15,000 word long article on strategic analysis.
Regarding your hypothetical Indian attack scenario with 30 aircraft, Tahmed321`s advice is still sound. 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. Thus, your logic will quickly collapse. 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. Best of all is for India and Pakistan to completely disband their offensive capabilities, and rely only defence, or put their militaries under some sort of joint command.
#271 Posted by Romair on July 17, 2001 6:54:29 pm
tahmad: I have read your nukes first strategy with interest. I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru.
I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.
Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.
Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.
So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.
I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.
Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.
Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.
So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.
#270 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on July 17, 2001 6:54:29 pm
INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF INDIA.
The following is a list- still not comprehensive- of incidents of vilence reported against the Christian community in India. All care has been taken to ensure the authenticity of the data. Wherever possible, the actual FIRs and complaints and reports of the National Minorities Commission and othere government organizations have been used in this list.
1. 1999 Number of cases of violence against Christians:60
2. 1964-1996 Number of cases of violence against Christians: 38
3. 1997 Number of cases of violence against Christians:15
4. 1998 Number of cases of violence against Christians:136
Number of cases in Gujarat in 1998: 84
Numberof Nuns Raped: 5
Number of Nuns Killed: 9
Number of Nuns Manhandled: 25
Number of Priests/Pastors killed: 16
Number of Churches/Chapel destroyed/burned: 11
#269 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on July 17, 2001 6:54:29 pm
Rsaxena, #: 255
You say,
``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``
Why: -
a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?
b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?
c. Are you assuming India is secular?
d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.
I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.
You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.
PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``
Aisha
You say,
``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``
Why: -
a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?
b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?
c. Are you assuming India is secular?
d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.
I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.
You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.
PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``
Aisha
#268 Posted by shammi on July 17, 2001 6:54:29 pm
Romairr #256
``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``
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. Also, 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. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?
``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``
Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.
Having made the minor points above, 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.
``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``
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. Also, 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. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?
``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``
Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.
Having made the minor points above, 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.
#267 Posted by ylh on July 17, 2001 6:54:29 pm
I still dont understand what harm you see in keeping 33 frontline F 16s, (if you consider F 16 A/B frontline).... We need atleast two squadrons of capable interceptor fighters... and when we ground the F 16s ... we need to replace them with two squadrons of other frontline air crafts.
I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.
-YLH
I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.
-YLH
#266 Posted by Romair on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
tahmad: I have read your nukes first strategy with interest. I had typed up a detailed analysis, but it didn`t make it thru.
I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.
Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.
Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.
So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.
I have always stated that nukes should now become Pakistan`s main deterent. However, they should be the last line of defence and not the first line of defence. Otherwise, Pakistan and India will end up in a nuclear war, even at the smallest provocation. And the nukes need to be supported by a potent air force. Pakistan already has, to the best of my knowledge, quite a potent SAM, missile, and radar defence system. However, that alone is not enough.
Let me give you a scenario: Suppose India launches an attack consisting of 30 Mirage-2000s and Su-27s etc. Pakistani radars detect them, and Pakistan SAMs knowck out fifteen of them (probably an extremely optimistic number). So fifteen make it thru. Each one of these could pummel a Pakistani city, even without using nukes. Their first target would be Pakistan`s Command, Control and Communicaitons center. Second targets would be Kahuta and wherever else Pakistan keeps its missiles. After this, Pakistan would have lost its nuke strike capability.
Also, Pakistan (and India) do not keep there nukes pre-assembled in silos, ready to launch, like the US and Russia. By the time, Pakistan would get these nukes to lauch time, the above mentioned aircraft would have knocked out the deployment systems, if not the nukes, as well.
So how would you suggest Pakistan counter that, without strong air cover. And F-7s alone cannot take out Mirage-2000s in bulk, even if Chuck Yeager was flying the F-7s.
#265 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF INDIA.
The following is a list- still not comprehensive- of incidents of vilence reported against the Christian community in India. All care has been taken to ensure the authenticity of the data. Wherever possible, the actual FIRs and complaints and reports of the National Minorities Commission and othere government organizations have been used in this list.
1. 1999 Number of cases of violence against Christians:60
2. 1964-1996 Number of cases of violence against Christians: 38
3. 1997 Number of cases of violence against Christians:15
4. 1998 Number of cases of violence against Christians:136
Number of cases in Gujarat in 1998: 84
Numberof Nuns Raped: 5
Number of Nuns Killed: 9
Number of Nuns Manhandled: 25
Number of Priests/Pastors killed: 16
Number of Churches/Chapel destroyed/burned: 11
#264 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
Rsaxena, #: 255
You say,
``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``
Why: -
a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?
b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?
c. Are you assuming India is secular?
d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.
I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.
You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.
PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``
Aisha
You say,
``India does not need to use anyone to prove its religious diversity. It is a fact; it`s there for everyone to see. That`s the difference between a secular country like India and an Islamic state like Pakistan.``
Why: -
a. Are you being a self-righteous fanatic?
b. Are you concluding that the Islamic state Ideal has got to be inferior to what India is now?
c. Are you assuming India is secular?
d. Don`t you understand that when 1 billion people lie loud and long enough it is everywhere, but it is not necessarily true.
I am touched that you are such a believer in humanity that you propagate each individual being true to their country regardless of religion caste or creed, but it would be even more touching if you, instead of borrowing form our Founder`s Ideals, took inspiration form your own reality.
You see I don`t think India is all that. I mean it is an ok country, but it has its rot, and you should smell the putrid sting instead of trying to highlight the problems in Pakistan. And while you are at it teach a thing or two to your home minister.
PS Refer to India`s failure resource I compiled for those of you who are to obsesses with us. I have six words for you, ``home needs repair, leave neighbor`s alone``
Aisha
#263 Posted by Shah on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#262 Posted by shammi on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
Romairr #256
``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``
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. Also, 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. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?
``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``
Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.
Having made the minor points above, 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.
``Or was their (Indian Muslims`) tax money sent to Israel, without their permission? ``
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. Also, 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. Is this turn-around simply to make cheap shots at the expense of Indian Muslims?
``Don`t you feel a bit odd that a giant country like India, with a huge defence budget, actually has to purchase weapons from tiny Israel?``
Actually, China (an even bigger country with an even bigger defense budget) wanted to buy the Phalcons from Israel, before US pressure turned that deal down. You are confusing quantity with quality.
Having made the minor points above, 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.
#261 Posted by ylh on July 17, 2001 6:54:02 pm
I still dont understand what harm you see in keeping 33 frontline F 16s, (if you consider F 16 A/B frontline).... We need atleast two squadrons of capable interceptor fighters... and when we ground the F 16s ... we need to replace them with two squadrons of other frontline air crafts.
I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.
-YLH
I agree with the rest, but PAF is far effective a force to be done away with in the favor of the Nukes... I think the Tanks and a huge army should be the first one to be replaced.
-YLH
#260 Posted by tahmed321 on July 17, 2001 2:52:37 pm
Further to Fuzair`s note #259, (a) in my note #260 should read ``nukes and low-cost conventional defense`` (latter being SAMs and citizen army). I forgot the conventional part that I did mention in earlier post (oooops). Thanks, Fuzair.
And ylh (assuming you agree with the approach), I expect to have a fully costed strategy document from you on my desk on the dot at 0800 hours tomorrow morning. Got it!!!
And ylh (assuming you agree with the approach), I expect to have a fully costed strategy document from you on my desk on the dot at 0800 hours tomorrow morning. Got it!!!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- harish_hyd: #118 by MantoLives Well neither... Living Gandhi and King
- tahmed32: Mr. Madani #84 In... MQM - History and
- HP: About Brohis from Wiki. "There... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- ahmedmadani: Karachi is advanced place... MQM - History and
- ahmedmadani: Muzumdar , sorry for... Living Gandhi and King
- MatloobZaman: “Independent Kashmir will be... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- MantoLives: PS: There is also... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Errata: Fazlurrahman's role in... Living Gandhi and King
