Military Balance in South Asia

is it almost meaningless to speak about an India-Pakistan balance

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 61.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 38.6%

  • Total voters
    44

marcvs75

New Member
It's a very interesting lay-out of the number of armed forces. I must say the military strenght of India is impressive !!
 

WAR

New Member
My Comment.

Your question for poll is:
"is it almost meaningless to speak about an India-Pakistan balance"

Well, there is no harm discussing about (im)balance provided it remains within the walls of decency and courtesy.

But the experience shows that such themes for discussion are over-whelmed with chauvinistic approach, along with shitty obsessions -- ending up in little or iota of rationality. And most of the times moved and filled up with impulsive outcome.

So, it is upto the Mods to regulate such themes.
 

aaaditya

New Member
weasel1962 said:
Article's not actually useful. The source is primarily from the IISS military balance. I'd rather read the military balance itself rather than this article.

The article makes comparison of numbers. This is actually quite meaningless or misleading in many aspects for example,

(i) One country might have a military half the size of another but 10 times less territory to defend;

(ii) It doesn't take into account deployment, tactics, training, logistics, serviceability etc that all count in a true balance.

Sure, I might have 5 fighters and the opposing has 1. But if 1 is a F22 and 5 are Mig 21s, that's misleading isn't it?

"Balance" is of course used in the context of a weighing scale than the suggestion of parity.

Once you see it in that context, you'd realise how amateurish the article really is.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that India doesn't have a military advantage over Pakistan. Just that like WAR says, its normally a pointless exercise masked by unrealistic nationalism. Just look at the pakdef forum. Rationality is a scarce commodity there.
but as of now pakistan does not have f22's most of the fighter jets in pakistani airforce are derivatives of the migs with the sole exception being the f-16.
 

uaf

New Member
weasel1962 said:
Article's not actually useful. The source is primarily from the IISS military balance. I'd rather read the military balance itself rather than this article.

The article makes comparison of numbers. This is actually quite meaningless or misleading in many aspects for example,

(i) One country might have a military half the size of another but 10 times less territory to defend;

(ii) It doesn't take into account deployment, tactics, training, logistics, serviceability etc that all count in a true balance.

Sure, I might have 5 fighters and the opposing has 1. But if 1 is a F22 and 5 are Mig 21s, that's misleading isn't it?

"Balance" is of course used in the context of a weighing scale than the suggestion of parity.

Once you see it in that context, you'd realise how amateurish the article really is.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that India doesn't have a military advantage over Pakistan. Just that like WAR says, its normally a pointless exercise masked by unrealistic nationalism. Just look at the pakdef forum. Rationality is a scarce commodity there.
1) ok first of all lets accept it that India has the numerical advantage over Pakistan and perhaps all will Pakistan will never have Armed Forces as big as India has …..

2) Second lets unfold some of History, (Battle of Badr) early times of Islam there were only 313 soldiers fought against thousands without advanced weaponry as compared but still won the Battle, look at what happened to Roman Empire and Autumn empire the people at that time thought there will be no force on earth who can defeat them but they fell to the force far less in number far less advanced???? Can we justify how it happened???

3) The Jhangiz khan which we believe was the greatest conqueror in the world as his empire was twice the size of Alexander the great but he lost to a person with far less army far less resources but he was the only one who defeated Jhangiz khan which later prove to be the first step to end the empire created by Jhangiz khan ………….

I agree with weasel1962 Pakistan has thrice the less territory to defend and is almost 1/9 the size of population India has so if u convert those factors than we should discuses why there is Imbalance in South Asia …. And other than conventional forces why we forgetting both are nuclear powers will any one risk to attack other and face the retaliation in shape of nuclear attack???? Which will kill Billions of people on both sides ……………..

Any how I would like to ask web master to close this thread because it will lead to bashing each other both from India and Pakistan which we should not do so let’s just live in peace we already has a peace process in place between Pakistan and India.
 

atulbansal

New Member
I think we all knew about the numerical superiority of india in the south-asian region.... the thing most notable of them all is indian forces are on modernisatiion rampage. The army not relying on air-force helis is building a huge air-arm of its own.... they have ordered some 190 light attack helis plus some 1000 t-90s..... and another 100 or so MBRL batteries.
The way navy is building up with more and bigger carriers and nuclear subs .....its ambitions are not just limited to the south-asian region.
Being an indian myself... i think our forces maybe trying to catch upto the chinese.... but i dont think we need to do that yet..... we should try our best to win the economic war first.... anyways the defence budget still at 2.5% its good to see the armed forces all lined up for a major upgradation.
 

atulbansal

New Member
the indian navy will have two 40,000 ton carriers each with 25+ modern planes by 2012, and cabinet alost cleared 2 more ADS after the first one.... plus 6 scorpenes and another 4-6 ATVs will be there in 12-15 years bringing the total sub-fleet to 30........i dont think they need 30 advanced subs and 4 mid-weight carriers just to operate in the south-asian region.... anyways recently the navy has been the focus on defence forces and there were talks to increase the percentage allocation to the navy's defence budget.....thats why i said "beyond the south-asian region"
 

atulbansal

New Member
those are all peacetime deployment patterns
obviously whatever may the expansion plans be..... indian navy cant become USN which is present eveywhere everytime

all i m trying to say is that they will become a true blue water navy and will have the capability to operate in waters far-far away from indian ports
 

uaf

New Member
I wonder why India need a true blue water navy … unless she wants to be the predecessor of Russia against USA/west or rather to put China under pressure or is it against Pakistan than i m sorry Pakistan’s navy is already 1/3 of India’s if Pakistan is the prime target ( but they are too trying to enhance their capabilities) so it doesn’t make much sense why they need a navy as big as planned …. But one thing do come to mind is perhaps Oil will be of immense important in near future for the rising economies such as China and India …. So controlling the Middle East is perhaps many powers eyeing on … Perhaps
 

WAR

New Member
Nehru Doctrine/ Akhand Bharat.

uaf said:
I wonder why India need a true blue water navy … unless she wants to be the predecessor of Russia against USA/west or rather to put China under pressure or is it against Pakistan than i m sorry Pakistan’s navy is already 1/3 of India’s if Pakistan is the prime target ( but they are too trying to enhance their capabilities) so it doesn’t make much sense why they need a navy as big as planned …. But one thing do come to mind is perhaps Oil will be of immense important in near future for the rising economies such as China and India …. So controlling the Middle East is perhaps many powers eyeing on … Perhaps
Actually, this is not something a new phenomenon. In fact this is the extension of Nehru Doctrine in which the emphasis was on having great and big Army, Navy and Air Force, by way of achieving the long-desired goal of Akhand Bharat.

India has never accepted the partition of sub-continent in letter and spirit, and the Nehru Doctrine would pave the way of Akhand Bharat. This is being practically endorsed by the top-guns and think-tanks of India.

Only time would decide whether this strategy give the Indians their desired outcome. Having said this, I would add that former USSR failed to protect their territorial boundaries despite having large conventional and nuclear weapons!
 

kams

New Member
uaf said:
I wonder why India need a true blue water navy … unless she wants to be the predecessor of Russia against USA/west or rather to put China under pressure or is it against Pakistan than i m sorry Pakistan’s navy is already 1/3 of India’s if Pakistan is the prime target ( but they are too trying to enhance their capabilities) so it doesn’t make much sense why they need a navy as big as planned …. But one thing do come to mind is perhaps Oil will be of immense important in near future for the rising economies such as China and India …. So controlling the Middle East is perhaps many powers eyeing on … Perhaps
You may be intrested in Naval Chief Admiral Arun Prakash's statement.

Indian navy next 10 year

Though our maritime interests are now all over, anything that happens from the eastern coast of Africa and the straits of Malacca", he said the immediate footprints for the Navy was the Indian Ocean area.

In an interview to Armed forces newsletter 'Sanik Samachar', the Naval Chief said Indian navy was no no longer China or Pakistan centric. "We look way beyond. Out Maritime strategies have to take into account matrix of economic interest, military threats and other national interests
You may also want to look at this article 'The Indian Navy in 2020' by Admiral Madhvendra Singh (Retd).

Indian Navy in 2020
 

uaf

New Member
In an interview to Armed forces newsletter 'Sanik Samachar', the Naval Chief said Indian navy was no no longer China or Pakistan centric. "We look way beyond. Out Maritime strategies have to take into account matrix of economic interest, military threats and other national interests".

Umm interesting looking beyond can any one explain this please ?? beyond means West ?? … my guess is probably securing the safe energy line (i.e. Oil , gas etc )
 

atulbansal

New Member
60% of all trade-routes pass through the indian ocean
If IN can rule the Indian Ocean... India's influence will increase tremendously in countries ranging from east africa to australia..... i think thats the basica goal for this expansion
 

kams

New Member
uaf said:
In an interview to Armed forces newsletter 'Sanik Samachar', the Naval Chief said Indian navy was no no longer China or Pakistan centric. "We look way beyond. Out Maritime strategies have to take into account matrix of economic interest, military threats and other national interests".

Umm interesting looking beyond can any one explain this please ?? beyond means West ?? … my guess is probably securing the safe energy line (i.e. Oil , gas etc )
It's much more than energy safety. You may want to read the following excellent analysis of Indian Maritime Doctrine as well as Indian Army's cold start doctrine. I have included an analysis by Air Commodore Tariq M. Ashraf, Pakistan Air Force to give you different perepective of the doctrine. You may also visit Indian Navy's web site and read different speaches of head of Indian Navy which give further insight in to Indian Navy's Doctrine. Its lot of reading, but very intresting. I look forward to a healthy debate:)

Doctrinal
Reawakening of
the Indian Armed Forces


INDIA IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

R Adm PP Sivamani, AVSM, NM (Retd)
 

LordoftheLord

Banned Member
atulbansal said:
60% of all trade-routes pass through the indian ocean
If IN can rule the Indian Ocean... India's influence will increase tremendously in countries ranging from east africa to australia..... i think thats the basica goal for this expansion
my friend you have got Arab states with billions of $$$ who can defend them self if a threat like this comes Especially from India:lol3 ..

overall that guy who wrote that artical wasted his and our time!! that stupid talki talk had his Encyclopedia opend and simply copy and pasted facts and figures with his name tag at the bottom:tomato ! he didnt even Mentioned 200-300 al-khalid, 200 al-zarar, the number of tanks given by him were very misleading, 2,461 in fact pakistan has about 4,500tanks!

Al-Khalid (Main battle tank) 300
T-55 (Main battle tank) 50
T-80UD (Main battle tank) 320
Type 59 (Main battle tank) 1200
Type 69 (Main battle tank) 2500
Type 85-IIM (Main battle tank) 250
 
Top