India & Pakistan Arms Race, biggest world threat?

1. 0

   ryankettposted 12 years ago

   Pakistan now has over 100 deployed nuclear weapons, India has been investing heavily too, Pakistan is about to build its FOURTH reactor.
   
   Could the burdeon to India's continued growth be a forthcoming stand off, and why the hell would you want to nuke the country which is attached to you? Surely that would effectively be suicide?
   
   India and Pakistan are well on the way to possessing more active warheads than Europe (France and UK combined), and both will have more than China within a few years.
   
   Is there enough stability in that region for those countries to possess those capabilities? Three wars in 60 years suggests not. The arms race in that part of the world could potentially pose a much greater threat than the current situation in Korea.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Hunbbel Meerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am from Pakistan, and I know the ground realities here.
      The fact is this, both these countries will never back off in creating weaponries and no one will ever attack each other with a nuke. This is a fact, everyone knows here, but many of them may not accept it.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Hunbbel Meerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Coming to your point again. YES, this is an unfortunate incident that both these countries, with ALMOST similar culture, and living styles (like America & Canada, as far as I know) has been rivals for each other for such a long period of time.
      
      I've read an article that was wonderfully written by Russell, (I think Betrand Russell was his name)
      If you are interested you must read that text (I'll confirm the title name, m unable to recall it right now)
      
      The gist of that text was (which I believe, and according the realties here, is TRUE) that Asian countries possess so much power in terms of their resources and madness towards some one, example is India, Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. They all are very good in some particular field. So the Western Countries (mainly mentioned the British of that time - 1947) deliberately left a subject of dispute between these 2 powers, KASHMIR.
      
      The disputed area of Kashmir was the main reason of the 3 wars between them. I am telling you the first hand facts. In Pakistan, about 80% of the budget goes to the defense sector, and so does the India's. Now imagine, India's technology in I.T fields etc, and Pakistan's army/navy/air force are one of the much-talked field and forces respectively with NO BUDGET ON THEM AT ALL.
      
      If these budgets were allocated accordingly (and not 80% only on defense). These countries will be much developed like China, and Asia would have been a MUCH GREATER POWER, and that may clicked the Britians of that time
      
      Theme of that Betrand Russell's article, on which I 100% agree.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         India's defense budget 80%?...this is wrong figure..$29.46 billion is defence budget while gdp is 1 trillion...not much...and considering relationship it shares with growing super power china, it is not pratical to lesser defense budget...coming to pakistan is is 5 billion...considering pakistan's gdp it is too much but pakistan considers India as existential threat (wrongly from Indian perceptive but pakistan views it as reality)

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Hunbbel Meerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I'm from Pakistan, that's y 80% is right. I heard (from many people around & from the local media - may be they were exaggerating)
            that India too has their defense budget somewhere around 70-80%. I mean that's too much, if it is. Specially from Pakistan's point of view, as it's economy is lesser developed than India.
            
            Btw thanks for the statistics

            replyreport
            1. 65

               pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               nope...that is what i am saying...India has very less % of gdp in defence..the military expenditure of India has hovered around 2.75 percent of GDP ...you can do simple maths...divide $29.46 billion by 1 trillion and multiply by 100...
               
               India spends too less in comparision to Pakistan as far as gdp goes...considering pakistan is 1/6 of India , its gdb is quite low and so figures of India are high....
               
               do India and Pakistan need it is different question though...

               replyreport
         2. 0

            ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You seem to be mistaking GDP for government revenues, if a country distributes 80% of budget to defence spending then it is effectively allocated tax incomes to this purpose not a proportion of the GDP, in order to do so it would need total ownership of every dollar in the country.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               if a country distributes 80% of budget to defence spending then it is effectively allocated tax incomes to this purpose not a proportion of the GDP
               
               that is what i am saying...this 80% is wrong figure...if we go by revenue it would still be 25% at best because revenues are 130 billion while defense budget is 30 billion..
               
               
               yes lately India has been going for upgrading but it is too little to less..India sees china as threat and not pakistan...and china's defense system is robust..china has attacked India once and India has every reason to be suspicious about china...India's defense strategy is largely based on counter terrorism and chinese perceptive...

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "if a country distributes 80% of budget to defence spending then it is effectively allocated tax incomes to this purpose not a proportion of the GDP"
                  
                  That's what I said.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     i am not getting it..u say if country distribute 80%...now it doesnot...that is what i am saying...it doesnot distribute 80%...

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        It was you that mentioned the GDP
                        
                        "India's defense budget 80%?...this is wrong figure..$29.46 billion is defence budget while gdp is 1 trillion...not much..."
                        
                        I pointed out that GDP is entirely irrelevant to the claim that India spends 80% of its budget. why did you mention GDP? As it happens, 2.9% of your GDP is a lot of money; it represents a higher monetary than the UK has spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars since inception.
                        
                        Indian tax reciepts equate to around 18% of GDP, so nowhere near 80%, but that is still a significant proportion of your government revenues. Total spending was 221.5 billion, so that is over 10%.
                        
                        Some would argue that you should stop your silly arms race and invest more in your infrastructure and IT, thats the only way you will truly catch the big boys, especially as you ran at a deficit of around $70bn in 2009... 6.2% of your GDP.... either that or raise your taxes.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           All valid points, Ryan, but a little difficult to achieve at this point of time.
                           
                           It is a tough neighborhood that we (India) live in.
                           
                           Everyone is counting on the scorching pace of growth that everyone believes that India will attain - it will attenuate somewhat the ill effects of arms expenditure.
                           
                           Plus, investing in infrastructure and the works is not limited for the want of funds - the only barrier is the Government willingness and ability to start the work.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Shouldn't India be thinking about reallocating a proportion of that military expenditure to improvements in their infrastructure and IT? Or even better, your IT infrastructure? Getting more people hooked up to broadband is important. Its a shame you couldn't patch things up with China, two of the fastest growing nations on the planet - there could be some ferocious trade there. It is improving, but ultimately that region could become the most important in the world in the longer term if you could get over your silly little disputes about fences.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 @Ryan,
                                 
                                 As I mentioned earlier, the Indian defence budget is around 30 billion dollars - and capex is less than half of that figure. Infrastructure investment in India does not need 10 or 20 billions - we need 100s of billions.
                                 
                                 The problem is, expenditure in defence is a highly visible thing - everyone notices it on the trot. Not so with infrastructure - the results take a long time to show. And if you are aware of how things work in India, "long" is "VERY LONG" indeed. Do you know that Indian govt is going to develop 7 megacities ( on the lines of Shanghai) along the Mumbai - Delhi highway? How much money is that going to cost?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    No idea, I should imagine that it would cost a lot (although would also attract lots of external foreign investment); that could well be a solution to your problems though, build new cities with the infrastructure in place, perhaps even move your financial centre away from Mumbai - or at least split your financial centre across two cities.
                                    
                                    Out of interest, are there any areas in India which are becoming populated with Europeans? In other words, are there places where white people are buying up property for investment purposes or for holidays? It seems like an interesting place for a property investor.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yes, the govt needs to get its act together. The basic idea behind the development of these cities is decentralization - in every meaning of the term.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       If you find any populations of Europeans here, it is mainly in the so called "spiritual" hubs - that is one of the stereotypical images of India - the land of ultimate spiritual freedom.
                                       
                                       We have a very small number of immigrants from the Europe - for a variety of reasons-
                                       - The laws are not very friendly for immigration - no one probably imagined that Europeans may want to settle in India
                                       - Infrastructure - it will take a lot for someone from US or UK to settle in India - just for living. It is cheaper - but you will have to spend a lot on other things - power, water, security, healthcare etc. (Many things that you may take for granted in West)
                                       
                                       The people (of western origin) who come here to work is increasing - but it is still that odd posting before they move on to more important stations.
                                       
                                       Real estate investment is very tough for a foreign national in India - even on an institutional basis.

                                       report
                        2. 65

                           pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           @ryankett
                           
                           No...i wont vote for getting defense budget down....reason is because it might be correct principally but not practically...i stay in India and i know how things are here ...i can't advise about where should usa or europe invest...reason i dont know what kind of threats usa faces...i can just read and have bit of understanding...thats it...in same ways India cannot cut down its defense budget...coming to pakistan , well India was never in race with pakistan. India doesnot see pakistan as threat...India is more concerned with china and less with pakistan...
                           
                           It may seem to be silly race by you but for country which has faced 4 wars and is victim of terrorism since 20 years , well it is need for remaining upright....it could not have been 2nd fastest moving economy without its defense system...for growth stability is needed and in region where India is , it is unfortunate need...
                           
                           Yes in future if India ,Pakistan and china go for more harmonious relationship...well then what you say would be silly race because of sake of it...till then it is not at all silly...
                           
                           infra yes...we need lot of money in it but that can be managed...we are not doing it as OR...this or that...we need defense system to have stability and which in turn leads to growth...
                           
                           If we would have had better option, land which gave gandhi and was not equipped to fight china in 1962 , wont have opted by 30 billion for defense...

                           replyreport
      2. 60

         SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am not sure about the figures for Pakistan, but that figure is entirely wrong in the case of India.
         
         As for Kashmir being the bone of contention - yes it is, for now. Let us consider a hypothetical situation - the Kashmir issue is somehow solved. You really think peace will break out between India and Pakistan?
         
         NO.
         
         Someone somewhere will find another reason.
         
         China - that master of artful diplomacy from times immemorial - will continue top add fuel to fire. It is in China's strategic interest to tie a heavy mill around India's neck. Have you heard about the "Pearl of Strings" theory?
         
         Coming to Pakistani nukes, I read a very interesting article - written by a Pakistani author. The gist was - The main purpose of Pakistani nuke is purported to be protection against a conventional military response from India. The nukes have repeatedly succeeded in that, three different times (according to author) -
         
         1999 (kargil)
         2001 (Parliament Attack)
         2008 (Mumbai Massacre)
         
         It is accepted that India considered a conventional military strike in all these events. What binds all these attacks together is ONE fact - they were all perpetrated by terrorists based in Pakistan.
         
         So, effectively, Pakistani nukes are protecting those terrorists!

         replyreport
2. 81

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   Indians are collecting nuclear weapons only to show off. There is no way they're going to attack any other country because if they do then there is no way they can manage the chaos within country. China is swallowing indian lands and releasing new maps in market, same is the case with pakistan. Indians never opposed them or took the matter to UNO. India is not a threat and never will be as far as weapons are concerned. Any 14 year old terrorist can cause havoc here and get away with it. Thanks to lefties, all the attempts to cause war are taken down. If right/centrist starts to rule this country then situation is going to change for sure.
   
   I'm not sure about Pakistan's nuclear stuff because regional politics and purpose of research in that place is completely different. I think 70% or more of pakistanis hate america than india. So india is not currently concerned with nuclear threat from pakistan. In fact both countries are trying to avoid war and manipulation from china/US as much as possible.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If China is stealing your land then why do you spend billions of dollars on their submarines and other military stuff?
      
      That's a little like watching your neighbour move his boundary fence to steal a metre of your garden, and then baking him some cakes.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ????

         replyreport
      2. 65

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         chinese submarine?...well from where did u get this?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh OK, sorry it was Russia.

            replyreport
      3. 81

         skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         India is not in position to make war with any country. Shooting even a single bullet to Chinese soldier will cause a lot of tension on border. On that point, china is the biggest threat to any other asian country. Nuclear Pakistan is not at all threat to india  or anyone unless someone plays wrong card.

         replyreport
3. 65

   pisean282311posted 12 years ago

   No...India would never use nuclear weapons...Infact nuclear India is less threat than nuclear usa or russia or china...Pakistan wont be too adventures to nuke India..

   replyreport
4. 60

   SiddSinghposted 12 years ago

   as per 2010-2011 Union Budget
   
   Total Central Govt Expenditure Budgeted - Rs 11,08,750 cr
   Allocated to Defence - RS 1,41,700 cr.
   
   That is significantly less than 80%.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ryankettposted 12 years ago

   By the way, your country may have a military BUDGET of $29.6bn but we all know that budgets can be exceeded, in 2009 you were said to have spent more like $36bn on the military... so over budget...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don't worry on that account - we are experts at under-utilizing the allocation.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         sidd got it right..

         replyreport
6. 81

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   I'll make steve jobs rich by purchasing apple products than buying those useless dummy electronics from china. There is something seriously wrong with their quality control.

   replyreport
7. 81

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   Pune, Goa and some religious places in north india. Few europeans come to pune for religious and educational purpose and that's all.
   
   
   No idea about foreigners investing in property market. Never came across any, at least here in pune.

   replyreport