Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News India-US defence pact

  1. Jul 2, 2005 #1
    What do u think will be the developments of the recently signed indo-us defence pact?
    I think it's a major loss to India, the army will have to yield to US command in its adventures, The Chinees, Russians, Paks would hate us. Our gas, energy projects in Iran, Central Asia would probably hampered by the US also we would be hated by other countries since the US can use indian ships to (I forgot the correct word) stop and check ships that it suspects of carrying WMD.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 2, 2005 #2
    For those not aware of this, here is a link to the a Times of India article on it:


    It sounds like India benefits more than the US. They get transfer of US military technology, and given Pakistan's past history of aggression toward India, this might come in handy.

    This also may signify a shift of alliance away from Pakistan and toward India, which does make sense. India and the US now have strong economic ties, and similar interests whereas Pakistan's current pro-Western government is not likely to survive much longer. Instability in Pakistan, which is probably right around the corner, could pose a serious crisis for both India and the US, given the small fact that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.

    India still opposes the war in Iraq, but who cares? It's irrelevant to their own interests.
  4. Jul 2, 2005 #3
    Given Pakistan's past history of aggression toward India, you must know that we trounced them every time.

    Possible downturn in India's reputation among Asia and Middle East.

    It's not the military technology that I care about, I worry about India's ability to function as a soveriegn nation. In the future, India could be forced to agree with whatever the U.S. decides, that's what I worry about.

    Especially Russia and the Middle East, from the time of our independence, we have been staunch allies with the Russians and the Middle East, mainly Palestine and I want India to maintain those ties, because those are the only two who have not double-crossed us. The U.S. sells military weapons to Pakistan at the same time it makes these deals with India. The trust factor for India is definitely not there.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  5. Jul 2, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What ally of the US has ever been forced to perform actions against its will? I haven't read this treaty, but usually in a mutual defense treaty, each nation is beholden to the other only in case one is attacked. I don't see the US being attacked any time soon.

    Do you mean that US-based arms dealers sell to Pakistan? Again, I don't know much about this, so I'm not arguing with you, but unless they're on a DOD contract, aren't these dealers private? I don't think they represent the US government or the people. Arms dealers throughout history have always sold weapons to both sides during a war; that's why war can be such a lucrative business.
  6. Jul 2, 2005 #5
    In part, I am referring to the recent F-16 sales to Pakistan by the U.S.

    Still I would rather trust someone who has remained in support of India since it's independence, rather than someone who has been known to double-cross (meaning supporting India's enemies during Indian wars) and not be in the safe interests of India for most of our history (and yes I am also referring to Nixon who labeled Indians as bastards during the 1971 India-Pakistan war and opposed us during the war itself). I don't have a problem with the U.S. doing so, meaning I don't hold grudges because it was in its self interests, but it does affect my trust and I feel that the pact goes against our interests.

    But talking about domestic policy, this is always what the Congress does, every single time they are in power, they suck up to countries and go against the common consensus in such political matters.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  7. Jul 2, 2005 #6
    Yes, that is true, much to India's credit I might add.

    But what if a Taliban-like group comes to power in Pakistan (a distinct possibility)? You may not be dealing with a rational government in Pakistan any longer...a government that happens to have nuclear weapons. Of course, India has nuclear weapons as well, but would you really want to use them?

    It seems that for this reason, India is interested in anti-missile technology (which comprises the major technology transfer portion of the agreement) which the US is offering.

    It is true that the US has sold military technology to Pakistan, as well as given financial aid. This has been the "deal with the devil" in order to support the war in Afghanistan. It is also true that India, Russia and Pakistan were consulted prior to the US taking down the Taliban, and all agreed with the exception of Pakistan; Pakistan wanted a more direct incentive.
  8. Jul 2, 2005 #7
    I dont really think the Pentagon will transfer technology to India. They'd probably ask us to assemble some missiles, etc.
  9. Jul 3, 2005 #8


    http://missilethreat.com/threat/india.html [Broken]


    Here is a Pakistani editorial saying how India will have an advantage with the PACIII:
    http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-daily/27-02-2005/oped/o3.htm [Broken]

    Indian editorial:

    On previous sales of weapons to India:

    Here is the Patriot III:


    are you really in India? Looks like you have some homework to do.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jul 3, 2005 #9
    Alliance of USA in 70s and 80s:

    -Mujahideen (including taliban and Alqaeda)
    - Saddam (Iraq)
    - Shah (Iran)
    -Suhartu (Indonesia)
    -Dia Elhaq (Pakistan)
    - The Zionists
    -Arab dictators

    Today most of those alliances (except Zionists) became enemy of USA!

    The American do not acknowledge the support of Islamic world (e.g. Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt ...) against USSR during cold war. All what they want today is to show their ‘’new enemy” as the Devil (just watch some Hollywood movies-evil colored primitive people in desert fighting against the civilised white super American!!)

    This will be the fate of India in future if they accept this alliance.

    Always we consider India as great representative of third world countries, and most of ME nations rejected to consider the Pakistani-Indian conflict as religious wars. We wish to see the Indian giant rise to support the ‘’forgotten nations’’. I hope also to see alliance between China and India to have better future for this world.

    Today Indian economy grows quickly and they have the best skills in advance sciences, e.g software engineering. There are many good signs that this country will rise in next few decades.

    American right wing (who controls this country now) aims to start what called ‘The clash of civilization’ between the cultures the world. They proposed Hindus (India) to fight against Buddhist (China) and Islam (Pakistan) in behalf of the Judeo-Christian culture. The destruction of Asian cultures is based on starting of nuclear war between Pakistan, India and China, so the only culture can survive after this ‘’Asian’’ nuclear holocaust is the Judeo-Christian culture.

    For more information about what in the American politician minds, you can read this book:

    Samuel P. Huntington

    ((Samuel P. Huntington is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests."))

    The sudden love for India by some American politicians is based on this theory, because they want Indian to be in the first line of the nuclear front against the ‘’proposed enemies of USA: China and Islamic world.

    Unfortunately there are some extremists among Muslims and Hindus who support it … but we should not forget that India has common history with ME since thousands of years and we faced many enemies through centuries. (ME and South Asia) used to live in multi religions and multi cultures nations since the rise of human civilisation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2005
  11. Jul 3, 2005 #10
    you know, that's the ironic part. Now, the Taliban and Pakistani government both have a reason to hate India. Before, it was just Pakistan and I assure you the Middle East and the Taliban were not happy with Pakistan being the "ally" of the U.S. in the Iraq war. So, in a sense, it was like the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think now they have more of a reason to attack us than before. In addition, the pact also unites the Taliban and the Pakistani government in a stand against India. My deepest fear is that it will do more harm than good and possibly result in something detrimental to India. In the long run, the pact will result in our shedding of allies that have held strong with us throughout our history since 1947. Now, it's like India betraying them.

    So, what we will have now is the countries surrounding us will hate India, so now we have more of a reason to need anti-missile technology because of the pact itself, lol, it's almost like it creates the problem it wants to solve.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2005
  12. Jul 3, 2005 #11
    No doubt that this is great weapons!!

    It is similar to the weapons that Ramsfield asked to sell it to Saddam during his war with Iran!!!
    Of course American weapon lobby is the third lobby who is enthusiastic in new wars to sell their weapons. The first two lobbies are the Oil lords and the Zionist (IPAC).

    In 80s USA used to sell advance weapons to Iraq and Iran (remember Iran-gate) in the same time, so the war extended as long as possible.

    May be the American politician want to repeat the same strategy with Pakistan and India by selling advance weapons for the two countries in the same time.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  13. Jul 3, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    I'd say it is because India's economy is taking off. What better way for the USA to cream off any increase in India's discretionary disposable income than to encourage an arm's race between India and it's neighbours. As the premier supplier of advanced weapons systems the US will earn billions from what is still one of the poorest regions on the planet.
  14. Jul 3, 2005 #13
    I still don't understand how someone like Manmohant Singh would fall for this, of course he is nothing more than a puppet under Sonia Gandhi and knowing her history, it all makes sense. For example, when her husband was in power in the early 90s, she got all the government contracts to countries in Italy (where she is from) leading to massive corruption in the dealings, so basically the Italian companies got everything and the companies the deals were given to were headed by her family relatives. Seriously, she is like Hillary Clinton, except 100 times more evil.
  15. Jul 3, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Selling weapons does not constitute technology transfer.
  16. Jul 3, 2005 #15
    the goverment can prevent the private sector from legaly selling to enemys of their allys. iraq for example would be vary difficult to get weapons into from any nationals because of US clout

    btw if anyone is interested in world issues, the small arms trade is vary interesting topic and is over flowing with shady deals and people making money by exploiting cracks in international laws and lax regulations, at least in the late 90s. im not entirly sure about right now.

    sorry for going off topic here :redface:
  17. Jul 4, 2005 #16
    What you say has strengthened my statement. The US has just sold the missiles and not the tech know-how to create them nor does it jointly developed missiles with us.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Jul 4, 2005 #17
    No..read the agreement, a big part of it is the "technology transfer" (the transferance of the intellectual property, licenses, etc. for the weapons technology).

    I'm not really sure where you're going with this...is this the argument that you are trying to make?

    Pro: India will significantly strengthen her defense, and guarantee her security for the next 10-20 years - very good in the short term
    Con: India will be seen as not being independent of the US, and therefore will inherit future US-resentment, the actions of the US will be tied to the reputation of India - not good in the long term

    Is that accurate?
  19. Jul 5, 2005 #18
    Yes. Not only that our traditional ally of Russia may not be happy with us.
  20. Jul 5, 2005 #19
    Lol, We didn't need security before signing this pact. No one hated us except one and that one never posessed any iota of threat for us, now everyone important to India hates us.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook