Whether or not M1A2s are equal or inferior to a tricked-out T-90 is a long, long debate.
There is also China, but I personally don't think much of their new tanks.
That's an interesting way to put it! From my basic reading I'd consider the M1A2 to have an edge over the T-90MS. If you look at the bigger picture (logistics and total cost of a war), then the T-90MS might have an edge.
If you see comments that should be moderated but weren't, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing all the comments here. You can let us know about it by flagging it (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) or by emailing [email protected] in egregious cases.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_doctrine_of_Pakistan
It seems that you just wanted to make a point.
For the municipal water issue what has the state government/city done over the years?
We can build-up national security and enhance focus on internal problems at the same time.
For example, there have been talks of cooperation with Israel on the water-shortage issue:
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/israel-comes-forw...
Maintaing the equilibrium is obviously good for peace. But there are reports of India and Pakistan beefing up nukes.
1. https://wap.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fewer-...
True. But in a nuclear conflict there are no winners.
Why don't you learn from your Northerly neighbors (China) on how to run government? One thing I find in my travels to India, is how much abject contempt you guys have towards the Chinese way of doing things. Unbelievable - considering the cultures are very similar (Buddhist thought has historical played a major roles in both cultures), similar population sizes, etc..
No, let's follow a political system that has had no organic roots/development in the country and pretend all are literate folks who are capable of holding a debate on what policies are good for their country, while the politicians take out everyone to the cleaners.
Perhaps India could learn a few lessons from China, but the role model approach wouldn’t work.
> Buddhist thought has historical played a major roles in both cultures
Buddhism was born in India, but never spread across country in any considerable amount, other countries took up on it. The place where Buddha was born and enlightened is in modern day Bihar, you rarely find any Buddhist there.
India is very diverse, we have 22 official languages (~1000 unofficial), and for many languages writing scripts change, within 100 to 200km dialects and languages keep changing. Food keeps changing, climate keeps changing. People's behaviour keep changing. Dressing style, music, dance,... keeps changing. Nothing stays the same.
Government have recently released a educational draft, indicating children should be tri-lingual (native language, Hindi, English) and many people straight out opposed it, indicating they don't accept Hindi, as in near future there language may go out of existence.
The main problem is we cannot communicate properly, with each other from other places.
India is in no way similar to China, except for huge population numbers.
Despite being colonized for ~800 years(600 years under Muslim rulers, 200 years under British), culture haven't changed, think how stubborn people are.
We are a mess in it's own way, but we somehow survive and flourish slowly.
A good modern day example would be, Indian election.
Indian media and left tried there best to spread anti-modi movement (~5 years), no media channel have expected modi to win majority in 2019, but it came to be quite opposite.
Even now, all media channels are doing some analysis, how did this happen.
There is an old saying ( loosely translated), If you are having a discussion with 5 chinese and 5 Indians about a problem. All Chinese come up with one solution, Indians come up with atleast 6 different ideas.
Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Ahmad_Shah_...
Ah yes humans really do thrive under totalitarian dictatorships
India is far more multicultural (multiple religions, multiple ethnicities, multiple languages) than China.
Easy rule of thumb for the last 2 millennia of history: China has spent most of its time unified, while India hasn't.
There were very few genocidal wars or wars of total annihilation. This strangely was a common problem not only in China but in Europe where loosing a war would mean total annihilation. This only came to an end in India with the Islamic invasion - whose strategy like in Persia or Mesopotamia consisted of raid, loot, murder and flee. When they found themselves more permanent rule it was mostly about conversion, taking slaves, destruction/defacement or appropriation(repurposing) of non-islamic buildings.
It is like saying the Soviet was united and the EU was never. The Soviet was held together by force, the EU is held together by consent.
However, I do feel that we can learn a lot from Chinese people and culture.
All the while, even the DNC refuses to hold a climate change debate to figure out how candidates are approaching the biggest existential threat we face now.
Unfortunately humanity isn't good at facing long term issues that require serious sacrifice and collective action.
On the contrary, long term issues are not likely to be a huge problem, if you factor investment, innovation and technical improvements. It's not like the world is static and nothing is going to happen in the coming 50 years.
Let me remind you at that in the early 20th century everyone was seriously worried that humanity might starve to death once we reach 1 billion people. And we are now more than 7, and no starvation is in sight. That was a long term problem that basically disappeared completely.
It's not obvious the problem is solved, it may only be delayed.
I presume, though, that you're opposed to e.g. a heavy carbon tax. You can use that same line to sweep the downsides of it under the rug--after all, a carbon tax will drive innovation toward green tech.
It's a kind of technological nihilism that says that technology will fix everything. In the real world, we have to consider concrete costs and benefits.
In the long term, we are far poorer if we don't address climate change.
* hold that technology will fix everything, but
* oppose a carbon tax, which would give a market incentive to technology aimed at fixing this
It's not even consistent with market principles. We have the income tax, a massive distortion in the economy. We could replace much of this with a carbon tax.
To the extent that carbon use is absolutely necessary (read: inelastic), the tax will be passed on transparently. It'd be theoretically efficient in the same sense a land tax is efficient.
To the extent that carbon use isn't necessary (read: elastic), it'd drive people to substitute it for something else.
Even efficiency of implementation is trivial compared to income tax. The government knows where companies are extracting fossil fuels, and it knows which companies are extracting fossil fuels, and fossil fuel extraction requires large amounts of hard-to-move capital.
Policy-wise it's as pure an economic win as we can imagine in this world of ours, as we'd be moving away from distortionary income taxation.
Threats are rarely the reasons we attack people. Politics and resources are more likely.
Asking with India is fighting Paskistan is like a drunk asking a friend why smoking those bad, bad cigarets.
It would be revealing, but I would fear for the safety of the author of such an article.
Why isn't the US equally interested in spreading freedom and democracy in every single country on this map? https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/
I feel sad when Indians wank about military technology and "national security" issues due to Pakistan and China. The single greatest national security threat for India is Indians' abject incompetence in governing themselves. I fear that we will pay a very heavy price for this.