From: bkannan@HA07.ENG.UA.EDU (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Fighter Jets
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:48:26 GMT


shankar@are.Berkeley.EDU (Shankar Subramanian) writes:


>National security is better served by measures to improve relations with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>our neighbours.  We simply cannot afford to foster a military-industrial
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                                          

     I don't dispute that statement. A world order that seeks to remove
  distrust among nations is a laudable goal. But to assume (or even pretend)
  that there will be no threat to a nation which preaches such a philosophy
  can be disastrous to say the least. This "all's well-mentality"   was
  largely responsible for the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait.


>complex as occurred in the USA and the USSR.  In the US, a mature capitalist
>economy, high military expenditures and the MIC were made possible partly
>because high government expenditures were required to maintain full employment.
>But even in the US, high military expenditures have taken their toll.  The
>civilian spin-offs of military technology are not enough to justify military
>R&D expenditures (the US microelectronics industry is in some ways an
>exception) and one reason why Japan and Germany have done so much better, it
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
has been argued, is that they didn't engage in `surplus burning' as did the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
US and were able to invest in civilian-oriented R&D.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Having lost WW II, there was no choice(for both Japan and Germany) other than 
  to assume a more subdued role in military affairs. The U.S became a gaurantor
  of the Security of these nations. The threat was also different. All of them
  found a common enemy in the U.S.S.R. The burden of defending these nations
  against the evil of Communism was assumed by the U.S. and hence Japan and 
  Germany didn't engage in "surplus burning"(to borrow your phrase).  


> The collapse of the Soviet Union is an object lesson in what happens when
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a backward economy is forced to build up a large military sector.  Whatever
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>possibility there is now of successful policy reform in India would be
>negated should India decide to invest heavily in military production.


  The Soviet military should never be a model to emulate. Or for that matter
  the American military. The interests of both these extended far beyond the
  borders of their respective nations. They were  pitting  one ideology
  against the other and to discredit each other were playing murky games in
  far away lands.
  
     Britain, France and Sweden  have moderate investments in defence (by U.S
  stds) to take care of external threats  and at the same time have been
  have been exporting hardware that  fetch them the  much sought foreign-
  exchange currency.May be we can do something on those lines. 
  
  The Soveriegnity of a Nation can be safeguarded only when it becomes
  Independent in all spheres, political, economic and military. India is
  yet to achieve the last two and aspiring for it is a good begining.
  India can no longer rely on the Russians for Goodwill-gestures (military). 
  Israel is learning this lesson the hard way from the U.S. administration.
  It would be wiser of India to learn from the mistakes of other nations(U.S.S.R
  included). An off-shoot of the current reforms in India has been the 
  new found willingness of the military to seek private investment. That 
  certainly augurs well for the country, cynics notwithstanding.


>  Of course, just like people in other third world countries, many in India
>seem to think that the hallmark of modernity is being able to produce weapons
>of mass destruction or cellular telephones or computers, not improved and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>affordable sewage systems, mass transit systems or reductions in infant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>mortality.

  Weapons of destruction are not barometers of the extent of modernisation
  of a nation. They are just bargaining chips and acquiring them reminds the
  World that Science and Technology as destructive tools are not the preserve
  of the developed half.

  You seem to be suggesting that India should stop sending satellites into the 
  skies till it gets  the sewage systems to work efficiently? We can endlessly
  argue about the choice of priorities a nation should make as it modernises.
  Inefficient sewage systems,day-long-delays in air and rail traffic etc. are
  attitudinal problems that cannot be fixed merely by displacing investments. 
  The reason India is neck-deep in such  problems is because our  society seems
  to be too tolerant of mediocrity and inefficiency.

  Poverty, illiteracy, population explosion et.al are problems that have
  to be accorded priority. But to wait till all of 'em are solved before
  embarking on Research (Military and civilian) smacks of outdated
  Socialistic-thinking.
  
>Shankar Subramanian

  Balaji Kannan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian