DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**nuncEtedben** · 04-29-2011, 12:34 AM

NYT coverage of the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/bu...v&ref=business

Others are downplaying this contract, but I think since it's been a long time coming, and since fighter jets are always those sexy things that catch policy makers' eyes, in strategic sense, this was a blunder on Indian government's part.

It is true, however, that last time India needed spare parts for certain war fighting equipment during a time of crisis (a mini-war, basically), U.S. refused to supply those parts and so the war effort was grounded a bit and India had to rely on secondary suppliers. So it is understandable that India would not want to jeopardize a big part of its air force fleet to sudden and capricious embargoes imposed by U.S. government.

04-29-2011, 12:34 AM	#2
nuncEtedben Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 467 Senior Member	NYT coverage of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/bu...v&ref=business Others are downplaying this contract, but I think since it's been a long time coming, and since fighter jets are always those sexy things that catch policy makers' eyes, in strategic sense, this was a blunder on Indian government's part. It is true, however, that last time India needed spare parts for certain war fighting equipment during a time of crisis (a mini-war, basically), U.S. refused to supply those parts and so the war effort was grounded a bit and India had to rely on secondary suppliers. So it is understandable that India would not want to jeopardize a big part of its air force fleet to sudden and capricious embargoes imposed by U.S. government.
	Quote