Talk:Indian Armed Forces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] No first use of nuclear weapons
see Nuclear doctrine
"... India has a nuclear no-first-use policy and it is also the only country in the world till date to have such policy."
If you follow the link No first use (also in the article) you wil see, that, aperently (I do not know if it is true or false), qoute: "... The former-Soviet Union, Russia, North Korea, India, and the People's Republic of China have pledged not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict ...".
One of these articles must be wrong ...
- I'm pretty sure that the person who said that India is the "only" nation to pledge no-first-use policy is incorrect. (Psychoneko 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC))
yes only india has the no first use policy . thats completely true
[edit] misleading link
I move the Time.COM link to "references". Cause it ONLY mentioned the exact size of pmf but NOT pmf's size being the largest in the world. For example, according to "U.S. Annual Report on the Military Power of PRC, 2005", the size of China's militia, one of the two components of her paramilitary forces[1] , is at lease 10-Million strong. We need accuracy, but not nationalism!
References:
- www.sinodefence.com/army/orbat/reserve.asp
- www.time.com/time/2002/kashmir/militarystats.html
- www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf
See also:
If RV, please quote/cite further sources.--219.78.172.189 07:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FA drive
To meet WP:WIAFA, I consider the following necessary:
- Creation of a "see also" topics template
- Rename the article to "Indian armed forces" (Q: Why was this moved from "Military of India?")
-
- A: It happened here with a cut and past move. Like Military of the United States this should be moved back to Military of India for consistency. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Detailed yet succinct descriptions of the army, navy, air force, etc. Care must be taken to avoid overflow - leave most stuff for the forks.
- "Challenges" section - what problems, modernisation schemes, purchases of military equipment, training, governance issues?
- WP:NPOV - no patriotism or nationalism must be expressed in this article.
- Please take guidance from Kargil War, an FA.
Rama's arrow 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The expansion is the most daunting task, it would be very helpful if most people who voted for this article concentrate on that first. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Large amounts of references, not just to internet sources but also to books and other 'dead-tree' sources would be required. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing cut and past move
I will try to fix the cut and past move now. Please hold off on editing this page. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I quit. How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves is too complicated. Will visit back later. It's all back to where it was. Please continue. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
YHR6TIGHUO
I found many associated mail articles also require upgradation of contents including Strategic Forces Command and Indian Paramilitary Forces. --Bhadani 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV Check
The entire Article, with his numerous remarks about Indias importance, greatness and modern army seems to be a bit out of the picture. The Indian Army may be a force that should not be ignored, but its certainly not comparable to western nations, especially the US or the UK, especially not the Navy (the mentioned Carrier is over 40 years old). This may change in the next centuries, but as of today, this is a bit over the top.
--Kelnor 11:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I would amend your statement, as centuries is a laughable time period to use, especially when global power can shift in a matter of decades, while India's power is not comparable to that of the US today, it is widely agreed that it is a rising power, with its rapidly growing economy.
UK is now a third grade power . to be great power you need to survive nuclear attack , and with its size and population it can't survive even a single bomb . as far as india is concerned with its growing economy , technology it will be among top 3 world power in next 10-12 years from now and not centuries as stated by you with a feeling of inferiority complex . --24.16.136.78 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First, if this wasn't Wikipedia, i would be slightly offended by your remark that i suffer from an inferiority complex, without even being from the UK or having the slightest interest in these "my-country-is-bigger-than-yours" brawls. Second, as you may have noticed, my request for a POV-Check was discussed and overthrown months ago. Thats fine to me, but i wonder what someone has in his mind when i still contributes to a discussion already solved months ago. Third, i stand also corrected and have to admit that english isn't my primary language, and when speaking of centuries, i was merley refering to decades. Sorry, my fault. Furthermore i advise you to read the articles about great power and super power for the correct definition of the term, because yours seems to be quite wrong. --Kelnor 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Military of India and Pakistan.
Will any body give information about payment to individual in Pakistan and Indian Army? vkvora 06:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OMG IA has 6000 MBTs?
The last time i checked IAs ORBAT in BR, it was 2000 T-72s, 500 T-55s, 700 Vickers. even with total 1500 T-90s which would be ultimately in service, figure will not be 6K. --59.162.215.107 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The F... -word
In the first sentence you can read different times the F...-Word. Please delete.
[edit] "Military of India" or "Indian Armed Forces"?
The official name for the Military of India is the "Indian Armed Forces", so why is the name of the page Military of India, should I move it? Effer 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
I edited out some vandalism beneath the emblem on the front page.
Someone more qualified than I should probably write something more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bighark (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Table Edit Wars
There is a lot of editing and reverting of statistics in the table in the Strength section. Could we have only clear referenced information added. It would be better to discuss this information here before adding. Thanks. Sniperz11talk|edits 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)