In September 2018, the U.S. signed a security agreement with India unlocked the sales of billions of dollars of high-tech American weapons. India will purchase fighter jets, transport planes, drones and missile defense systems from American military manufacturers including Lockheed Martin. The U.S. government is seeking India as an ally to counter the rise of China and Russia’s military strength in the Indo-Pacific region. Proponents argue that the agreement is necessary to counter China and Russia’s influence and the agreement will generate billions of dollars in revenue for U.S. military defense contractors. Opponents argue that the agreement will encourage China and Russia to beef up their militaries and trigger a global arms race.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No
@9F5T9JH9mos9MO
The Chinese Russian alliance poses a major military threat to the United States and its allies going forward. If we can move India towards solidly being in the US-Western World sphere of influence, this military alliance is significantly less daunting as a US-India-EU joint alliance would be a tremendous deterrent towards Chinese expansionism in Asia and Russian Aggression in Europe. China and Russia are already anti-american, and selling arms to India won't change that.
That's an insightful perspective. Historical precedence, such as the U.S. support during the Cold War, supports your point. By providing arms and aid to countries resisting communism, the U.S. managed to create a balance of power. Following that logic, a U.S.-India-EU alliance could indeed serve as a substantial deterrent. However, it's important to consider the local implications of such a move. How do you think this might impact the political and social dynamics within India, given its nuanced relationship with both China and Russia?
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, and we should not sell military weapons to any foreign country
@9GCLD4V7mos7MO
Selling a total.package approach to weapon systems helps integrate us with partners for decades. This increases our relationship and ability to influence partners to make a more secure environment.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Not enough knowledge to make an informed vote
@8ZSCMSF2yrs2Y
No, and we should NOT sell military weapons to any foreign country. We should also NEVER sell our nuclear weapons to any foreign country either. This would start a global arms race.
@8NZC5ZMRepublican4yrs4Y
No, and we should NOT sell military weapons to any foreign country. This would start a global arms race. We should also NEVER sell our nuclear weapons to any foreign country either.
@8LG6J6C4yrs4Y
Continue to foster a military alliance and international cooperation (through the Quadrilateral, etc.)
@8RSZKBX3yrs3Y
Yes, but only to protect against terrorism.
@8GB4M8J4yrs4Y
No, and we should NOT sell military weapons to any foreign country. We should also never sell our nuclear weapons to any foreign country either. This would start a global arms race.
@8PYVJK43yrs3Y
Only to counter Chinese influence.
@99MFTPG1yr1Y
Yes, selling military weapons to foreign countries will help promote American interests
@93M3SYW2yrs2Y
No, India is pro Russia.
@8PJRPK74yrs4Y
No, and we should NOT sell military weapons to any foreign country. We should also NEVER sell our nuclear weapons to any foreign country either.
@8NFSQ484yrs4Y
Yes, but only with strict regulations and cooperation agreements, selling military weapons to foreign countries will help boost the economy. Diplomacy and peaceful resolution should always be the first course of action.
Absolutely, but make sure lasting aid is conditioned on India’s respect for human rights in disputed regions like Kashmir.
@KangarooSkylarLibertarian9mos9MO
Absolutely, the U.S. can use this as an opportunity to promote human rights globally. For instance, during the apartheid era, international pressure from various countries played a significant role in South Africa's transition to democracy. Similarly, the U.S. could use its arms sales to India as leverage to push for better human rights conditions in disputed areas like Kashmir. Don't you think this could be a more effective approach in the long run?
@8PT3DDM3yrs3Y
@8PRH3GQ3yrs3Y
Regardless, we should increase diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully
@9CM58G911mos11MO
No, India’s current government is notorious for its human rights violations
@9C9HM4H12mos12MO
Regardless, we should only sell military weapons to countries which have achieved acceptable standards in terms of democracy and human rights.
@9BTY39B1yr1Y
Yes, but we should increase diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully.
@99C7HWS1yr1Y
It comes down to intent. If the US supply arms specifically to counter the influence, then no. However, if India feels threatened and wants to be able counter the influence themselves, then yes. Either way, we should increase diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully.
@95LBPG62yrs2Y
Yes, and also increase diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully
@8S84H2H3yrs3Y
Yes, but only to help protect against Terrorism.
@9CGC35P11mos11MO
Careful support is what I’d say we need.
@8PZFPXD3yrs3Y
@9MZ7ZKX2 days2D
No, I do not support the Modi Government in India who been discriminating against the Muslim Minority.
@9MYMGYN3 days3D
Yes, as long as war crimes are not committed. Any country who commits a war crime, as determined by the ICC, NOT the US, should receive no more weapons from the US for a 5-year period, to be reassessed at the end of that time.
@9MYDFG7 3 days3D
Seems like you’re adding wood to an already hot fire. They have their own nukes so why arm them further. Very tribal conflicts and would not recommend this policy
@9MV7Q845 days5D
I truly don't have an opinion on this, I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to have a valid opinion.
@7YXQRQCLibertarian 1wk1W
No, the government should not sell weapons to foreign nations, but private companies may do so provided sales are not taxpayer-funded.
@9MN334F1wk1W
I think we should sell the military weapons to countries that are in our NATO group not foreign countries that aren't in NATO
@9MJWZLSConstitution2wks2W
Yes we should to try and counter China and Russia, but we should keep it very well regulated, and we shouldn't exceed certain amounts.
@Politics_532wks2W
Yes but we should increase our diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully to prevent a war and an global arms race. We should also limit to which foreign countries that we sell military weapons as well as, set a limit on how many military weapons we sell and host a vote once a year to determine whether or not to continue selling military weapons, to who we sell, and how much we sell.
@9MGL3BT2wks2W
This should be on a case by case basis since, while India is a key ally and faces formidable opposition from both Russia and China should open hostilities begin, they also have a long-standing and not always rational adversarial relationship with Pakistan, which might be where India would choose to employ any weapons sold to them.
Yes, but only if they agree to leave the BRICS economic coalition which China and Russia are also part of
@9MCGFQY3wks3W
We should be careful about who we sell to because of other countries that are apart of NATO might have bad government like hungry. We would just be helping them get more weapons that are strong and we wouldn't know what would they do with them
@9M9JJL83wks3W
No, we should primarily attempt to build positive relations through diplomatic means, especially in consideration of the current Indian administration’s domestic policy
Yes, this could have significant positive effect, it won't effect our relations with Russia, but it helps current US foreign policy, could improve our relations with India, and boost the US economy.
@9LZP5W8Libertarian4wks4W
Yes, it is up to private companies who make weapons to decide who they do business with. The Government doesn't sell weapons.
@9LZBBM84wks4W
You can make it different. You can make it right. You can make it better. We don't have to fight. You can make an effort, starting with tonight. 'Cause you-ooo you can make a change.
@9LSWJTC1mo1MO
No, selling American military technology only serves to destroy our advantages on the battlefield by allowing our enemies or potential enemies the ability to analyze our products.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...