Yes Pakistan should maintain a lean, mean Army. Numbers matter but so do the skills and advancement in technology.
Having said that....
I don't think Pakistan has to worry about being attacked by India. The only possibility maybe the "Coalition forces" taking an initiative and using Indian territory for refueling.
Thus far Pakistan has sustained itself from being invaded because of the nukes. Had they not been there, "pretend ones" would have been suspected and Pakistan would been liberated (WMD, Irack, etc..). Same formula. (USA did not attack Russia right upfront because both were aware of each others capabilities, both had the nuke-power to slide the earth in half)
The destabilization of the country from within is proving to be the best method of dismanteling the country's tight-seal assurance to its arsenals, hence the latest worries in the air and oh-so-repeated mantra of "nukes in wrong hands' as if they were AK47.
If anything, India and Pakistan ought to put aside their differences, join hands, and move forward like good neighbors with enough deterrent power to fend themselves again East, West, North and South.
A wishful thought, unfortunately unlikely at the moment.
Even if as you claim India isn't a threat (which I don't buy, BTW)...how do you propose Pakistan deal with all the Taleban militants, Waziristani & Balochi rebels, and whatnot?
Have an ineffective UN force come in and do the same kind of brilliant work they did in Bosnia and Somalia? And you don't imagine that the people of Pakistan would have any problem having European & American soldiers trouncing around their country?
Honestly, either you're an Indian or an idiot.
Well I do not claim any thing just my comonsense says that india would want nothing from us . Why would india want us give me one reason just one , why would india want us ? any way more to the point I said UN not European and American soldiers which can come from many other countries . How did people of Pakistan felt when these very Europeans & Americans came to rescue them after earth quake , had no problems then did they . Why could not pakistani army do it ? Do not tell me resources pleaseeeeeee I saw british rescue teams bring people out of Collapsed (illegal) tower in Islamabad they were just using drills . Ofcourse they were trained but why could not our Amry munching 80% of the budget train their own "People of Pakistan" .
Bosnia and Somalia were the results of civil war thats why UN failed . What about Japan can not you see them . They had not amry after WWII .
As far Taleban militants, Waziristani & Balochi rebels, and whatnots are concered well call it what ever I believe they have been inflamed by Mushraf in the first place to show to US that they need him . Secondly internal policing should strong enough to ram these morons (excuse my lingo please ) . Yes they should be killed and barried (probably down under :) ) but seriously our amry has now become and machine to run governments and sort any uprising against governments let that Musharaf , Zia , Ayub what ever .
Call me an idiot if you want but not Indian please :D
Every country should have its own military. It will prevent the neighbouring or other nations from bossing around. What will pakistan do if there is another situation just like in 2002 when indian army was deployed by a government run mainly by pagan baniya dhotis ??..May be you need to send suicide bombers to the indian parliament to deal with them if not defend yourselves by your own army (assuming you are pakistani)
This hot headed mentality is the root of all the problems that we have today ...
Mind you not many countries have their own armies . Also that aside our army has not ever cleaned up Waziristan yet what hope do we have against an external invasion .
This hot headed mentality is the root of all the problems that we have today ...
Mind you not many countries have their own armies . Also that aside our army has not ever cleaned up Waziristan yet what hope do we have against an external invasion .
dealing inside own country is always a tough task because they cann't use excessive force and then comes the human rights...even indian police + STF took 2 decades to capture & kill a single man "Virappan"...
da problem wid developing countries is "they need 10 security personnels to guard a working premise for 2 workers"..(Manager needs a Manager)
dealing inside own country is always a tough task because they cann't use excessive force and then comes the human rights...even indian police + STF took 2 decades to capture & kill a single man "Virappan"...
da problem wid developing countries is "they need 10 security personnels to guard a working premise for 2 workers"..(Manager needs a Manager)
Yes I totally agree with your but Pakistan Army does not provide that security and they should not its not their job . It is internal affair and should be policed or privatized .
First of thats the point I am trying to make India will not attack us . Why would they really ??? their army is for china not for us . .
You're absolutely right. For now, anyway.
The problem is that military capability takes a lot longer to rebuild than the speed with with political events change. In 1932 Germany was no threat at all to Britain and France and they were downsizing their once enourmous militaries.
Then things changed in Germany. By the time Britain and France recognised the threat they faced, their militaries were in no position to fight effectively and win.
Similarly with Pakistan and India. Especially with the nationalistic, right wing doing so strongly in India, Pakistan must be prepared to deter aggression from India should substantial political changes ocur in India.
Why would india want us give me one reason just one ,
OK young Man time for a history lesson.........Extremist Hindus have claims on the "INDUS RIVER" ...the Leader of the extremist Party in India that had Gandhi killed by "Godse" This Leader's remains(Ashes) are being kept by his party members and not thrown in Ganga like the rest of Hindus do, but according to his "Will" they are to be thrown into the Indus River after India captures it...........
Believe it or Not but those are the Facts.......:(
Just imagine if the army is cut down to the one tenth its present size and double police and other law enforcing agencies how much money could be effectively used for other developemental priorities.
Also imagine if it really happens what message it will send to all the poor neighbouring countries which keeps such a huge army at the cost of human sufferings and poverty.
A huge boost can be given to the educational and poverty reduction efforts by chanelling the moneys to these programs rather then to weapon making rich states.
I am sure your hatred for buffalo milk come from the fact Indians mostly drink buffalo milk. Here is a comparison of two milks:
Buffalo Milk Vs. Cow Milk
**No difference in nutritive value: **There is practically no difference in the nutritive value and digestibility of milk and milk products obtained from cow and buffalo milks. Lower cholesterol content: **Significantly, cholesterol content of buffalo milk is 0.65 mg/g as compared to the corresponding value of 3.14 mg/g for cow milk. ** More proteins: Animal bioassays have shown the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) value of buffalo milk proteins to be 2.74 and that of cow milk as 2.49. It will be seen that buffalo milk has about 11.42 per cent higher protein than cow milk. More important minerals: Buffalo milk is also superior to cow milk in terms of important minerals, namely calcium, iron and phosphorus which are higher by 92 per cent, 37.7 per cent and 118 per cent respectively than those present in cow milk.
**More vitamin A: **Buffalo metabolizes all the carotein into vitamin A, which is passed on to milk as such.
More viable commercially: Buffalo milk is commercially more viable than cow milk for the manufacture of fat-based and SNF-based milk products, such as butter, ghee and milk powders because of its lower water content and higher fat content. Most significantly, the lower cholesterol value should make it more popular in the health conscious market. By the virtue of greater opacity of casein miscelles, coupled with higher levels of colloidal proteins, calcium and phosphorus, buffalo milk is more densely white and has superior whitening properties as compared to cow milk. Therefore, unlike the cow milk (which is pale-creamish yellow in color) and cow milk fat (which is golden yellow in color), buffalo milk is distinctively whiter. UHT-processed buffalo milk and cream are intrinsically whiter and more viscous than their cow milk counterparts, because of conversion of greater levels of calcium and phosphorus into the colloidal form. Buffalo milk is, therefore, more aptly suitable for the production of tea and coffee whiteners than cow milk.Higher innate levels of proteins and fat render buffalo milk a more economical alternative to cow milk for the production of casein, caseinates, whey protein concentrates and a wide range of the fat-rich dairy products.] Better whey proteins: Proteins of buffalo milk, particularly the whey proteins, are more resistant to heat denaturation as compared to the cow milk proteins. Dried milk products prepared from buffalo milk exhibit higher levels of undenatured proteins when processed under similar conditions. In general, the reconstitution behavior of dried milk products made from buffalo milk is indistinguishable from those made from cow milk. However, dried buffalo milk may be preferred over dried cow milk for those technological applications where higher levels of undenatured whey proteins would be more desirable Better cheese](http://www.ilovecheese.com/): Cheese made from buffalo milk displays
Policies are not formed in a vacuum. We don’t live in an ideal world. The rationale given by the Indian Army can be applied to Pak Army as well. Even if there was no external threat -and it will be extremely naive to believe that there’s none- Pakistan needs a very strong and cohesive security apparatus to counter violent threats within its boundaries. However the army should not overstep the boundaries of its constitutional role.
'The Indian Army has turned down a government recommendation of downsizing in favour of more reliance on technology and weapon systems.
Citing factors like fighting militancy in Jammu and Kashmir and northeast besides manning the higher reaches of Kargil and the eastern front facing China, the army top brass has told the government to shelve the idea of “downsizing the military strength at present”. Instead of downsizing, Indian Army is raising two divisions for deployment in the mountainous terrain facing Pakistan and China. Former Indian Army chief, General VP Malik had decided to do away with about 50,000 troops in early 1999. But, soon after Kargil, he raised a new corps, 14 Corps based in Ladakh.
Over past few years the government here has been pushing the idea of restructuring in the forces to make it “more leaner and meaner”. Keeping in view the changed war scenario, a section in the strategic establishment has asked to rely more on technology and weapon systems rather on a huge man power. Government sources said that much of the defence budget, which accounts for more than 60 per cent of the annual budget, goes to salaries, pensions and other benefits like logistics and canteen services rather to modernization and the capital account.
It is believed that army’s top brass is likely to make a detailed presentation about the inadvisability of downsizing move to the top political leadership next month. The army says the ground situation does not leave any room for “field force rationalisation” (troops engaged in actual combat operations) as the two fronts, Pakistan and China, need physical presence of the troops on the ground. It has also argued that operational commitments in Jammu and Kashmir to tackle insurgency were manpower intensive.’ Source
Pakistan needs an army to protect itself from Talibans and Baluchis. Indians will never attack Pak, unless provoked like Kargil, or a humanity threat like a heavy influx of Bangla refugees in 1971. We are more interested in not getting our asses kicked by the chinese again. Actually, even that will chance once China moves to democracy.
Yes we do need an army to beat off both internal and external threats (let's not be so india-centric all the time, what about threats from Iran and Afghanistan if they ever become stronger than us militarily in future? This ummah bull does not wash with me. These days all nations put their own interests before everything) but perhaps we do need to cut down the defence budget from 30-32% to 20-25% and divert more money towards education and health.
...... Indians will never attack Pak, unless provoked like Kargil, ....
You are forgetting mate! Indian army attacked Siachin instead of opting a negotiated settlement. It simply shows that Indian policy makers will never accept Pakistan's existence.
And yes, Pak army is also needed to keep the internal threats at bay.
(assuming you are pakistani)