4 ms·

Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war. An official treaty was only signed during the events of 1971 w

by ra7 3y ago

Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war. An official treaty was only signed during the events of 1971 war. US-Pakistan mutual defense treaty dates back to 1954.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Right in front of leaders visiting each others’ capitals. Bottom line is India never courted the West. Pakistan did. Neither drove the other into anyone’s arms; American relations in Pakistan were focussed on the Middle East, India’s in the Soviets with China. When the theatre shifted to India v Pakistan, the table was already set and everyone assumed their places.
- ra7 3y ago
  > Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Not really, no. One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. India never courted the West because Pakistan already had close relations with them. The order matters since your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union. US had its own motivations (obviously) around curtailing Soviet influence in Afghanistan.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? > your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union This was never said? We didn’t ally with India because it was allied with the Soviets. We have no problem allying with both sides of a regional spat e.g. Israel & Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Greece and Japan & Korea.
    - ra7 3y ago
      > The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? I mean troop commitment. Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked? You’re kidding, right? Of course we would. (Unless it’s chickenshit business, like Indonesia and Oz getting into a coast guard squabble over migrant boats.) When you co-produce weapons, you send high-ranking technical advisors and expensive kit that needs guarding. This is why e.g. deploying a ballistic missile radar isn’t just plopping down a radar. It involves deploying troops around it. We have defence treaties with countries whom we don’t trust enough to co-produce with. Co-production is a big deal.
        ra7 3y ago
        I'm not kidding. But you're talking about something different. India and Soviet Union had a different kind of co-production deal. It has always been, even to this day with Russia, technology transfer and licensing i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India. No troop deployment, you're only in it for the money. The BrahMos missile development is the best example of this.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > even to this day with Russia, technology transfer i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India No troops, but certainly Russians. When the “help develop systems” part is in effect, you’re as good as allies. There are more broken defence treaties than cases of military technology coöperation betrayals. That is why those deals are so closely scrutinised. Treaties promise something in the future. Co-production delivers something today. Maybe there was foreign policy naïveté in New Delhi at the time. I don’t think so, but perhaps. On the Soviet side, they certainly knew what they were doing.
- shri_krishna 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Not sure what your point is? Yes, Pakistan has been our “ally from Hell” for at least a generation. Meanwhile India has wound up with weapons made by a “partner” who reports to its geopolitical rival. The point is it’s difficult seeing history following a different path. America was rebuilding and de-colonialising Europe. That required involvement in the Middle East. It was simultaneously countering the Soviets, globally. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, was the only one concerned about Chinese army’s potential in Central Asia. India, being close to that, was similarly concerned. (As it remains.)
    - shri_krishna 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        HN gets…weird…when it comes to India. > 180 degree reversal Got it, we should ditch India and give weapons to China.
        shri_krishna 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
    Absolutely right, and my point. From Pakistan we get mass death and destruction, but India brings Bollywood, Satya, and a bunch of entrepreneurs. The Pakistan alliance was a mistake, we should atone and cozy up to India.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > India never courted the West. Pakistan did India and the US did court each other til the mid-1960s. IIT Kharagpur was built by UIUC and IIT Kanpur by UC Berkeley, along with JK Galbraith's strong lobbying for Indians rule industrialization in "Economic Development" and "The New Industrial State". After JFK and Nehru died, the relationship tanked. Indira Gandhi leaned pro-Socialist economically with the 1969-73 nationalization drive that impacted American businesses, and LBJ and Nixon both detested Indira at a personal level (though to be fair the feeling was mutual). India supported the North Vietnamese during the war [0] and also began military tech transfers with the USSR and France during that time period [1] due to their mutual "Non Aligned" policy. There was an actual chance that India would have become a global factory, but the nationalization drive in the 70s and 80s [2] lead to American enterprises in India shifting to newly open China [0] - https://academic.oup.com/book/32264/chapter-abstract/268459766?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/32264/chapter-abstract/2684597... [1] - https://academic.oup.com/book/10629/chapter-abstract/158634792?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/10629/chapter-abstract/1586347... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/12/archives/reaction-is-mixed-as-ibm-departs-ibm-departure-stirs-questions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/12/archives/reaction-is-mixe...

by ra7 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Right in front of leaders visiting each others’ capitals. Bottom line is India never courted the West. Pakistan did. Neither drove the other into anyone’s arms; American relations in Pakistan were focussed on the Middle East, India’s in the Soviets with China. When the theatre shifted to India v Pakistan, the table was already set and everyone assumed their places.

ra7 3y ago
> Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Not really, no. One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. India never courted the West because Pakistan already had close relations with them. The order matters since your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union. US had its own motivations (obviously) around curtailing Soviet influence in Afghanistan.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? > your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union This was never said? We didn’t ally with India because it was allied with the Soviets. We have no problem allying with both sides of a regional spat e.g. Israel & Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Greece and Japan & Korea.
  - ra7 3y ago
    > The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? I mean troop commitment. Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked? You’re kidding, right? Of course we would. (Unless it’s chickenshit business, like Indonesia and Oz getting into a coast guard squabble over migrant boats.) When you co-produce weapons, you send high-ranking technical advisors and expensive kit that needs guarding. This is why e.g. deploying a ballistic missile radar isn’t just plopping down a radar. It involves deploying troops around it. We have defence treaties with countries whom we don’t trust enough to co-produce with. Co-production is a big deal.
      - ra7 3y ago
        I'm not kidding. But you're talking about something different. India and Soviet Union had a different kind of co-production deal. It has always been, even to this day with Russia, technology transfer and licensing i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India. No troop deployment, you're only in it for the money. The BrahMos missile development is the best example of this.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > even to this day with Russia, technology transfer i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India No troops, but certainly Russians. When the “help develop systems” part is in effect, you’re as good as allies. There are more broken defence treaties than cases of military technology coöperation betrayals. That is why those deals are so closely scrutinised. Treaties promise something in the future. Co-production delivers something today. Maybe there was foreign policy naïveté in New Delhi at the time. I don’t think so, but perhaps. On the Soviet side, they certainly knew what they were doing.
shri_krishna 3y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Not sure what your point is? Yes, Pakistan has been our “ally from Hell” for at least a generation. Meanwhile India has wound up with weapons made by a “partner” who reports to its geopolitical rival. The point is it’s difficult seeing history following a different path. America was rebuilding and de-colonialising Europe. That required involvement in the Middle East. It was simultaneously countering the Soviets, globally. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, was the only one concerned about Chinese army’s potential in Central Asia. India, being close to that, was similarly concerned. (As it remains.)
  - shri_krishna 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      HN gets…weird…when it comes to India. > 180 degree reversal Got it, we should ditch India and give weapons to China.
      - shri_krishna 3y ago
        [flagged]
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  Absolutely right, and my point. From Pakistan we get mass death and destruction, but India brings Bollywood, Satya, and a bunch of entrepreneurs. The Pakistan alliance was a mistake, we should atone and cozy up to India.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
alephnerd 3y ago
> India never courted the West. Pakistan did India and the US did court each other til the mid-1960s. IIT Kharagpur was built by UIUC and IIT Kanpur by UC Berkeley, along with JK Galbraith's strong lobbying for Indians rule industrialization in "Economic Development" and "The New Industrial State". After JFK and Nehru died, the relationship tanked. Indira Gandhi leaned pro-Socialist economically with the 1969-73 nationalization drive that impacted American businesses, and LBJ and Nixon both detested Indira at a personal level (though to be fair the feeling was mutual). India supported the North Vietnamese during the war [0] and also began military tech transfers with the USSR and France during that time period [1] due to their mutual "Non Aligned" policy. There was an actual chance that India would have become a global factory, but the nationalization drive in the 70s and 80s [2] lead to American enterprises in India shifting to newly open China [0] - https://academic.oup.com/book/32264/chapter-abstract/268459766?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/32264/chapter-abstract/2684597... [1] - https://academic.oup.com/book/10629/chapter-abstract/158634792?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/book/10629/chapter-abstract/1586347... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/12/archives/reaction-is-mixed-as-ibm-departs-ibm-departure-stirs-questions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/12/archives/reaction-is-mixe...