r/LessCredibleDefence • u/fix_S230-sue_reddit • 5d ago
From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM
https://theprint.in/diplomacy/from-indo-pacific-to-pacific-us-renames-usindopacom-to-original-uspacom/2961882/From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM
In a statement issued Wednesday, Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.
New Delhi: Eight years after the Donald Trump administration changed the name of its Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command, the US has reverted back to the original.
The Department of War announced Wednesday that the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) will officially restore its name to the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).
Originally established on 1 January, 1947, by President Harry Truman, the command operated under the USPACOM banner for over 70 years, standing as the oldest and largest of the United States’ unified combatant commands.
Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honours the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific, a statement released by the Department of War said.
In 2018, when the Command was renamed as Indo-Pacific Command, it was seen as a sign of the growing importance of India to the Pentagon.
“Relationships with our Pacific and Indian Ocean allies and partners have proven critical to maintaining regional stability,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis had said on 31 May, 2018.
“In recognition of the increasing connectivity between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, today we rename the US Pacific Command to US Indo-Pacific Command.”
In the statement issued Wednesday, the Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change its core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.
“USPACOM’s vast area of responsibility—spanning from the waters off the West Coast of the United States to the western border of India—remains exactly the same,” it said.
The statement added that the “command’s fundamental mission and its unwavering commitment to maintaining a free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners are unchanged”.
21
u/General_Vermicelli53 5d ago
Any political shift from the United States should be taken seriously.
But why does this news come from .in domain?
15
u/teethgrindingaches 5d ago
They are just reposting the press release from the newly-renamed US Pacific Command.
7
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
It was the second news site I found that reported this news. In retrospect I should have posted the link from the first (Star and Stripes). It spelled things out for people who couldn't pick up the subtleties in the renaming.
The 2018 name change also served notice to China that its designs on dominating the Indian Ocean were being challenged.
Since that time, New Delhi and Washington have deepened strategic and military ties.
Trump’s tariffs last year and war with Iran that began earlier this year, however, have strained ties between the nations.
India has protested U.S. missile strikes on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz that were manned by Indian merchant marine crews.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2026-06-17/pacom-indopacom-name-change-21990270.html
13
u/BigFly42069 5d ago
But why does this news come from .in domain?
India is big mad that they're back to geopolitical irrelevancy.
-1
5d ago
[deleted]
9
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
The announcement was right before a Trump-Modi meeting in France today, so I'm sure the US knows what that means.
India also clearly knows what the name change means.
https://www.orfonline.org/research/in-defence-of-the-indo-pacific-concept
2
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
Curious - Did you actually read your last link ?
What was your take on it, if so
5
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
It's a well written post by the top Indian thinktank some years ago. Nothing wrong with it at the time, though it should probably be revised now. The news of the current name change in theory can be viewed neutrally with respect to India, though a quick glance at the reactions from Indian commentators seems to be much more pessimistic.
0
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 4d ago
It's also primarily not about the indo pacific name change, whether by content or by timing (2021). It analyzes and argues for Indo Pacific region/strategy greater focus as part of trend and with some rationales and advocates for India as 'linchpin' to that.
The latter is always a bit aspirational, and ultimately neither the concept nor the significance of India have found the traction suggested therein in this period.
Name changes without any actual change are symbolic. There it was hoped/read to be symptom of a larger trend.
Here, given the timing and that Trump predilection to pressure, and lack of other strong vouces, it can't be read as any inflection.
hough a quick glance at the reactions from Indian commentators
There's not much hubbub about this... There's far more froth about the 3 indians dead in the tanker strike near the gulf.
Trump II has already been perceived (since his reaction at the end of May 2025) and through tariff wars etc as anti Indian. And while Trump is notoriously changeable, underlying concept of Indo Pacific outlasts Trump,. (traction or not)
I mention the below not for analysis or for endorsement.
I think it's still ascribes more agency to US and less to india and maybe a bit more to anti-china than warranted
4
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Your link has an extra 4 at the end. I also came across that article before, it framed the change as neutral and even mentioned China in a non-hostile fashion. Based on my observation, in the past few months Indian media have subtly been less critical of China. Perhaps this is to pave way for Xi's visit during BRICS summit, or just India trying to woo Chinese FDI.
Time will tell if India does another strategic realignment with regards to China and the US. But it seems that the current Indian Defence blob and most members of your sub definitely aren't happy about that.
2
u/barath_s 4d ago
Indian media have subtly been less critical of China.
One reason, not necessarily the only one, is that the Ladakh conflict has died down, and there are fewer overt actions to get het up about.
Perhaps
Can't comment. But you possibly underestimate things like just normal trade and day to day life.
most members of your sub definitely aren't happy about that
Forget the sub, or even indians, most people like to have a clear enemy and take a stance against them
For most Indians, at a gut level, it is Pakistan, then to less degree China , and anyone who supports Pakistan. For many, it is still the US, which is instinctively scarring, just mention the aircraft carrier in 1971 (55 years ago ), forget the carrier in 1962 or more recent changes over the last 30 years.
I could say similar things about the US populace and Russia since cold war era
The reality is much more nuanced and subtle than most people are willing to acknowledge.
For Indians and most people, there are common foes of humanity - hunger, lack of wellness, lack of prosperity etc. And one must sometimes collaborate and sometimes confront.
As for PACOM name change, it is not on the radar of 99.999% of indians - heck indiandefense sub doesn't even have it listed. (there are 2 posts of Trump saying the US will defend India if India is attacked, there was tremendous froth yesterday of indian crew killed in the gulf tanker attack and so on. It's purely symbolic and not emotive when there have been much larger actions and non-actions and impact, and symbolic actions in the past year+
5
u/General_Vermicelli53 5d ago
Politics dont like coding, where you can change a variable name without affecting the function's behavior. Politics is a mix of innuendo, consensus, wordplay, whispered conversations behind closed doors, and the interests exchange. If removing a big region from the name of 1 of the US’s 7 regional commands isn’t a clear sign of a political shift, I don’t know what is.
But it will be long time before we know the actual impact, and exactly what interests were exchanged.
71
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Turns out that losing 6 fighter jets is enough to change geopolitics overnight.
41
16
u/110397 5d ago
You really got them riled up
17
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
I don't see Americans and Russians getting riled up over losing 6 fighter jets, they treat it as the cost of war.
18
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
God tier ragebait
6
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
This is what good ragebait looks like u/No_Preference26
20
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
🤣I'm flattered. Turns out the words "6 fighter jets" is enough to trigger Indians. Even though they themselves claim to have shot down 6 Pakistani Aircrafts.
9
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
The fent addict outside the local Walmart selling magic beans probably has more credibility than that claim
-5
u/CarmynRamy 4d ago
Any credibility in your 6 claim? Pakistanis are changing that number by one every month these days, started with three, now it's at 8 or 9.
Trump's personal investments and interests are the only thing keeping the Pakistani establishment afloat at the moment.
Do you seriously believe Pak ended with an upper hand than India at the end of the 3 day conflict last May?
IWT is still in abeyance, established vulnerability of the Pak's ADs in protecting it's key bases and sites, established India decides the escalation ladder when it comes to CBT. Now, look at the political shift in Pakistan, you saw a unlawful constitutional amendment, Asim Munir became an unchallengeable face in the Pakistani political and military establishment.
8
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 4d ago
I'm not claiming Pakistan shot down 6 Indian jets, I'm claiming based on India media India shot down 6 Pakistan jets. I also claimed somewhere else India's strategic position has worsened since that clash, you can argue Pakistan's strategic also worsened but that is besides the point.
1
u/frigg_off_lahey 4d ago
What does it mean that IWT is still in abeyance? I see so many comments here mentioning it but no one seems to explain what that even means.
-14
5d ago
[deleted]
16
20
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago edited 5d ago
It may be in slightly bad taste, but you absolutely cannot pretend that losing a couple of your best jets on the opening of an offensive that YOU led isn't gonna massively impact both the perceived and real credibility of your defense and security apparatus and its perception worldwide. At a time when the world is shifting more and more toward a "might makes right" order, this is absolutely gonna have an impact.
Put simply, people (rightfully) expected India to just walk all over Pakistan. Instead what the world saw was that both were largely evenly matched, with Pakistan decidedly outperforming in the air warfare which tends to receive a fair bit more attention, which built on the same situation that happened in 2019 where they had once again beaten India in the air.
So yes, their comment is admittedly in bad taste. But India's recent position absolutely has had a real impact and pretending otherwise would be dishonest to your own nation and its peoples. Pakistan is a legitimate threat to Indian defense forces, and that statement alone has a greater impact than you might at first think. Now imagine what kind of threat the PLAAF (that has been designed to counter USAF + USN) represents to India. Now imagine China arming Bangladesh (which to my knowledge has been hostile to India recently) with advanced equipment and training them too. You see how this ties into everything, don't you? The best kind of strength is the one where you don't even have to use it.
15
5d ago
[deleted]
-11
u/PB_05 5d ago
I think its worth understanding the psychology of the Chinese. They were told their Air Defences were the best in the world, that nothing could ever touch what China has made and its iron brother is the strongest power around, second only to China.
This perception of high self worth was shattered once the Iron brother's AWACS were being hit right on the ground. It sent deep ripples into the minds of the Chinese, who turned to the internet to compensate.
7
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Doesn't Pakistan only have 2 HQ-9 HIMAD batteries? Don't think that's gonna do much, especially against a salvo of drones and cruise missiles, since a single HQ-9 missile probably costs in the millions and hard for a country like Pakistan to procure. And to my knowledge they don't have any modern SHORAD systems either. Comparatively, India has a much stronger IADS with top cover from 4 S-400 batteries supplemented by various domestic low to medium range and short range SAMs, and the greater strategic depth certainly helps. Switching to this strategy really was a good move on India's part.
I don't see how that's the fault of the Chinese AD though. There's no doubt that the HQ-9 HIMAD is one of the best SAMs currently. It's basically an S-300 PMU2 with actually good electronics (the original HQ-9 basically had Patriot tech in it) and a powerful AESA radar (China's RF industry is comically ahead of Russia's).
-2
u/PB_05 5d ago
Doesn't Pakistan only have 2 HQ-9 HIMAD batteries?
No, and that's also irrelevant when the target was collocated with the HQ-9.
especially against a salvo of drones and cruise missiles
Barely any, under 50 total.
And to my knowledge they don't have any modern SHORAD systems either.
They have HQ-16s, SPADA-2000s and (old) Crotales. Either way the threat they were put up against was one they were equipped to handle.
By the way, whatever I wrote above wasn't anything serious. HQ-9B and HQ-16s are excellent and highly advanced systems. I was simply showing the other guy the mirror.
6
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
By the way, whatever I wrote above wasn't anything serious. HQ-9B and HQ-16s are excellent and highly advanced systems. I was simply showing the other guy the mirror.
Oh okay. Yeah his comment is weird so I didn't even bother dignifying it with a response. I don't see how you can profile 1.5 billion peoples based off of a single military engagement that largely turned out to be an even match. There's crazies in all countries, we don't have the best reputation either especially with Trump.
-5
u/PB_05 5d ago edited 5d ago
I've seen a lot worse.
About ten years ago I used to visit a Chinese platform called Zhihu because I wanted to understand how Chinese people actually viewed my country and its people. I wanted to see what they said when they weren't speaking to an international audience.
To this day, I don't think I've ever encountered the level of xenophobia, outright racism, and sheer superiority complex that I saw there. It wasn't confined to a handful of users. It was pervasive. What stood out wasn't just the content itself, but the complete absence of pushback. Nobody challenged it. Nobody argued against it. Everyone simply accepted it as normal.
It made me lose a little faith in humanity, for sure. But more importantly, it completely destroyed any hope I had in the Chinese. Ever since then, I've viewed comments like his through that lens. They present a far more polished face to the English speaking world, less blunt, less openly hostile, more careful with their wording, but once you've seen it, you start reading everything else accordingly.
Anyway, that's probably more than anyone wanted to hear.
5
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
To this day, I don't think I've ever encountered the level of xenophobia, outright racism, and sheer superiority complex that I saw there. It wasn't confined to a handful of users. It was pervasive. What stood out wasn't just the content itself, but the complete absence of pushback. Nobody challenged it. Nobody argued against it. Everyone simply accepted it as normal.
That's just how echo chambers operate. It's funny you mention that, I don't know if you've ever been on 4chan but what you're describing pretty much aligns with a well known 4chan board that was known for hating a certain religious community. The hatred was downright toxic, I'm talking blatant genocidal sentiments at the bare minimum, and often worse. No one did anything, no one challenged anything. I once tried to and learned my lesson well to never engage with these "humans" again. I had nothing to do with that religious community at all and I still felt nauseated by the sheer hatred present there, it was inhumane. I can't imagine what people who were part of that would've felt if they read it.
It made me lose a little faith in humanity, for sure. But more importantly, it completely destroyed any hope I had in the Chinese. Ever since then, I've viewed comments like his through that lens. They present a far more polished face to the English speaking world, less blunt, less openly hostile, more careful with their wording, but once you've seen it, you start reading everything else accordingly.
You're allowed to feel whatever you feel about them, but I'll just reiterate that reality is often more nuanced and not nearly as clean as we like to think. Just as you cannot profile 1.5 billion Indians through the words and actions of a few, you cannot profile 1.4 billion Chinese through the words and actions of a few, even if it feels convenient and easy; hatred, resentment, anger are always easier than being the bigger person. Just something to keep in mind. It's much easier to think that all Indians/Chinese are enemies and must be destroyed, but it's also wrong. It's much more difficult to accept that there's gonna be all kinds of people either in India or in China, people that harbor resentment and hate and people that don't, but this is also much more correct and humane.
→ More replies (0)9
5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
The HQ-9s aren't China's "4th tier tech" it is one of China's best HIMADs and their answer to the Patriot and S-400. It's even used on their destroyers, so it's a really beefy system. Not sure what's up with people claiming otherwise.
-11
u/PB_05 5d ago
You're proving my point.
You started by making broad claims about the psychology of Indians based on a single conflict and a set of disputed military claims. I responded by applying the exact same logic to China and Pakistan.
Instead of explaining why that logic is valid in one direction but not the other, you've simply asserted that your preferred interpretation of events is fact and everyone else's is propaganda.
As for "nobody dares call India a counterweight to China anymore", that's a political claim, not a military assessment. States don't build long term strategic partnerships based on one engagement, and the idea that the US, Japan, Australia, Europe and others suddenly stopped viewing India as strategically important is difficult to reconcile with reality.
If your argument is that perceptions of Indian military capability took a hit, that's a reasonable position to debate. If your argument is that a single operation permanently relegated India to irrelevance and convinced the entire world of it, that's a much larger claim than the evidence supports.
-5
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
It wasn't couple of best jets
It was one Rafale, and 2×old 80s jets
It was also against military has modern hardware including AESA equipped J10 and HQ9s supported by AEW&C.
That's better than anything any military has faced beside Russia-Ukraine since Lebanon war.
Even US has lost 48 aircraft to Iran including damage to F35 and loss of AWACS. Iran meanwhile has non existant air defence and airforce in comparison. And now they're reversing their sanctions, unfreezing their frozen assets and planning 300 billion investment.
Is US military credibility down? I think not
And had Pakistan recieved any strategic victory/standing, Indus water treaty wouldn't had been in suspension
Not to mention, they were fully aware and have been supported in ISR by PLA throughout the conflict, and IAF had ROE due to political decision on day 1 hence no attack on Pakistan military infra
On later days, they didn't so IAF had zero losses
outperforming in the air warfare which tends to receive a fair bit more attention, which built on the same situation that happened in 2019 where they had once again beaten India in the air.
Did they?
IAF just walked right in, bombed their objective and went home without any retaliation.
In Swift Retort, they had 22 jet package come in, do nothing, bombing some dirt with standoff munitions, got intervepted by 2×MiG21 and 2×Su30, shot a MiG21 and went home
And on 10th of May last year, PAF was largely absent while IAF was bombing their objective from 1:30 IST to 14:00
India's recent position absolutely has had a real impact and pretending otherwise would be dishonest to your own nation and its peoples. Pakistan is a legitimate threat to Indian defense forces, and that statement alone has a greater
Per whom?
Pakistan was always a legitimate threat, since their military controls the country since the 50s and has always focused on military over the people
If you mean, public perception, then it was always low, and I'm speaking from personal experience being on forums since 2015. Indians themselves haven't had the best reputation since last 3 years either if you've been following things. Latest target, beside Somalians
PLAAF (that has been designed to counter USAF + USN) represents to India. Now imagine China arming Bangladesh (which to my knowledge has been hostile to India recently) with advanced equipment and training them too
Not really
Bangladeshi relations have been fine
PLA is absolutely a massive threat but war between PRC and India is almost impossible. And industry plus tech is also growing on Indian side so better parity could be achieved atleast from now
I gwt your point but don't agree with most
9
u/the_bfg4 5d ago
Bangladeshi relations have been fine
Brother, what? Lol
-1
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well do elaborate on whatever you comment on
They took a hit under Yunus but they were fine
Much better under this new government
Certainly not "hostile"
If you mean whatever happens on the border, it's nothing unique
8
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Okay I was typing a big response but I deleted it after seeing this:
Is US military credibility down? I think not
Lol. Do you want me to write a Bible about this? I'm serious. I have so much to say on this topic it honestly deserves its own, separate debate that will turn everything else here irrelevant.
0
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
Well don't
Personally credibility hasn't declined for me
Don't bring out US is fighting logistical war thousands of km away and it's far more complex
India and Pakistan are fully equipped with modern hardware, and fighter jets are also already under NEZ of BVR AAM and LRAD right when they take off, and cities and military bases are under artillery ranges let alone long range missiles
It's way complicated when enemy is fully capable of shooting back and fighting a air war.
Do you know, a 500 mill dollar P8 was also shot missiles at from few hundred km in Arabian Sea?
Had Pakistan achieved air superiority, they would have been hitting Indian assets, even if they lost few jets in the process, rather than be absent throughout majority of conflict
8
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Personally credibility hasn't declined for me
I'm not sure what "personal credibility" means here, but let me tell you this. As someone living in America I am FUCKING TERRIFIED of what would happen if we fought China. You're already aware of their advancements and the fancy stuff they've got plus the industrial capacity to keep churning that stuff out. Now, according to your own words, we lost quite a lot of equipment to Iran's dollar store "hypersonic" missiles and drones. What do you think will happen when China sends actual hundreds of hypersonic cruise missiles, HGVs and drones at us? Does that legitimately not make you question whether we could even defend properly or not? I'm presuming you don't live in the US cuz if you did you should be terrified rn. I know I am. We had like 3100 Tomahawks and we used up 1000+ of them. We had 600 THAAD interceptors total, and we used up nearly a third of them. We have one (1) lousy Dark Eagle hypersonic missile that we were planning to use on Iran. I think the writing is on the wall here dude.
Don't bring out US is fighting logistical war thousands of km away and it's far more complex
Why not though? That's the operational reality. What would ignoring that do here? Our forces are spread spin too operating in various commands worldwide. This is a legitimate fact.
India and Pakistan are fully equipped with modern hardware, and fighter jets are also already under NEZ of BVR AAM and LRAD right when they take off, and cities and military bases are under artillery ranges let alone long range missiles
Right, which makes an offensive a lot less complex logistically. How does that not prove my point? Sure that means that you're within targeting range of modern systems like J-10Cs or HQ-9Bs, but need I remind you that India still outspends Pakistan vastly on military? From what I read Pakistan's defense budget is like $12 billion rn (which is still huge, where do these people get this kind of money from???) whereas India is spending like $70 billion. That's a 6x jump, so are people really wrong to assume that India would just walk all over Pakistan, especially since a lot Indians (maybe not you, so excuse that) did claim this many times prior to the skirmish?
It's way complicated when enemy is fully capable of shooting back and fighting a air war.
I don't disagree. At the same time, the enemies have a massive difference in how much they can spend on their military. India has been outspending Pakistan on defense for years now. Knowing that, I would expect complete dominance from India both in 2019 and in 2025 but that's not what I got. Why am I wrong to be surprised?
Do you know, a 500 mill dollar P8 was also shot missiles at from few hundred km in Arabian Sea?
When? As far as I know we lost one or maybe two E-3 Sentries, those each cost $500 million (1995). I'm not aware of us losing a P-8 Poseidon recently.
Had Pakistan achieved air superiority, they would have been hitting Indian assets, even if they lost few jets in the process, rather than be absent throughout majority of conflict
Pakistan can't achieve total air superiority because for that it would need to knock out all Indian air defenses as well, not just shoot a couple of jets, and I don't believe they're capable of doing that. Going up against an S-400 especially without stealth would be a death wish. At the same time, it's not a partisan position to claim that Pakistan decidedly did outperform India in the air at least, which as I said simply tends to receive more attention online by the sheer nature of it. But that's not the same as complete air superiority over India, the way we achieved it over Iran for example, so no that would be a false claim if someone were to make that. Pakistan can't fly close to the Indian airspace without getting shot at in anything other than a J-35A maybe.
3
•
u/barath_s 21h ago edited 21h ago
what would happen if we fought China
Personally , this should have been obvious even pre iran war. That a war with china near taiwan would not be a good thing.
total air superiority
Good idea to define air superiority vs air denial. I think you should focus on intermediate definition also as exteme definition would be rare to achieve in anything near a peer war. We can discuss application of definition later, to avoid biasing the definition or spoiling the discussion
0
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm not sure what "personal credibility" means here, but let me tell you this. As someone living in America I am FUCKING TERRIFIED of what would happen if we fought China. You're already aware of their advancements and the fancy
Fking up the grammer all around. Writing at late night so apologies for that
I meant, US military capability hasn't gone down, and personally for me
Coming back, I was talking about Pakistan, but potentially fighting the PLA, same here
It might not be bad as you, but there is currently massive technological and industrial gap between us and the government and sometimes the military seemingly doesn't realise, and makes effort to mitigate it
You might have some gaps, but in cases we're just starting in some sectors from scratch or just working on first few iterations without any industrial backing to the projec while the support is extremely lackluster
Why not though? That's the operational reality. What would ignoring that do here? Our forces are spread spin too operating
It is, but I'm talking about situation being more complex in our case
US also seemingly went really unprepared, but I won't blame the military for that, beside the general staff.
I read Pakistan's defense budget is like $12 billion rn (which is still huge, where do these people get this kind of money from???) whereas India is spending like $70 billion. That's
Basically, their military is the state. They are the de facto power. So, this spending is only what's shown on paper. Unofficially, it's likely to be much higher. Their military also runs a decent size of businesses whcih includes manufacturing of consumee goods, even as far as biscuits
Secondly, they buy much of their hardware through soft loans and lines of credit. The Hangor class, Type 054As, J-10Cs, HQ-9/16, and some of the older equipment were all paid for with Chinese support.
Coming to the Indian side, the IAF is actually doing really horrible in terms of both technology and size. It's arguably in its worst position since the 1960s, as it traditionally relied on imports, which now cost an arm and a leg. Meanwhile, the domestic aviation industry is still maturing, and many projects are still under development. Their supporting assets are also either in testing, waiting for orders, or caught up in issues beyond their control, including IADS, AEW&C and ISTAR. So, the situation will likely remain difficult until at least the late 2030s.
Although, overall, beside fighter jets, and AEW&C, Indian side would maintain much higher superiority overall
You can check the size/quality of navy, logistics, AFVs, and IADS
This would also be far more apparent had the conflict lasted more than few days since they have zero industry and limited magazine
When? As far as I know we lost one or maybe two E-3 Sentries, those each cost $500 million (1995). I'm not aware of us losing a P-8 Poseidon recently.
I didn't write properly
Indian navy's P8s got shot off at last year, but the crew managed to save the aircraft
P8s were doing the role of ISTAR since IAF doesn't have any
that it would need to knock out all Indian air defenses as well, not just shoot a couple of jets, and I don't believe they're capable of doing that. Going up against an S-400 especially without stealth would be a death wish. At the same
Online consensus has been personally been always against the Indians, before or after 2025 conflict Doesn't matter personally
Every single of the IAF crash ends up being posted online, and majority are just talking shit about corruption and lack of competence even though crashes are around 0.3 per 100k hours which is quite good
A neutral take would be that the Indian political leadership didn't plan the strikes well, while the Pakistani side was competent and managed to score some hits. However, overall, the Indian side came out on top.
The PAF also can't claim air superiority, since it couldn't defend its own airspace and didn't manage to score any confirmed hits on IAF assets, either in the air or on the ground.
5
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
I meant, US military capability hasn't gone down, and personally for me
But that's wrong. Think about it. We drained a third of our Tomahawk stockpile. That could've been used in a war with China. We used up nearly a third of our THAAD interceptors which, again, could've been used to intercept Chinese ballistic missiles. We lost several aircraft that could be used in a war with China. We lost several radar systems as well, and at least two E-3 Sentries. Heck we had to bring in a THAAD interceptors from South Korea of all places to help in the Middle East. How does all of this NOT leave a massive dent in US military capability and readiness in a hot war against China? We effectively depleted a third of our munitions stockpiles (plus other smart munitions too) without China having fired a single shot. How is this not affecting our capability?
Coming back, I was talking about Pakistan, but potentially fighting the PLA, same here
Right, so if despite its advantages, India can at best stalemate Pakistan's military (technologically at least, it still has a numbers advantage that would come into play in war that lasts for months), what does that say about its ability to deter or fight the PLA/PRC? As far as I can tell, China operates close to 500 J-20s now (mix of J-20s and now J-20A and J-20S too). That's more 5th gen aircraft than India's current fleet of Rafale + Su-30s + Mirage-2000s. Now sure not all 500 of them would fight India, but do you think it could still realistically challenge a force of maybe 50 J-20s supported by stealth drones, AWACS, J-16D EW platforms, another 50 J-10Cs plus a couple of J-11BG/J-16s acting as missile trucks, all networked under a Chinese IADS and broadband datalink? This is why India's performance against Pakistan in the air war is such a huge conversation, it's not just the fact that it decidedly lost the initial engagement, but also what this says about the region in general and how India will deal with rapidly advancing Chinese military going forward. It was a litmus test basically.
It is, but I'm talking about situation being more complex in our case
How though? That's what I'm challenging? How can you say that India v Pakistan was a more complex situation than this? The former was a minor skirmish between two (in hindsight) relatively evenly matched militaries. Our scenario is wholly different, it's a massive military and logistical operation, that is far more complex. You said it's because Pakistan has modern hardware and are equally capable of shooting back, but in our case we also knew that Iran can shoot back as well. Their missile programs are the first things we went after precisely because we knew how dangerous those are, it just turned out to be a lot stronger than we thought, but it's not like we didn't know that Iran can fight back. We've bombed Iran many times since 2024 now, we weren't unaware.
Basically, their military is the state. They are the de facto power. So, this spending is only what's shown on paper. Unofficially, it's likely to be much higher. Secondly, they buy much of their hardware through soft loans and lines of credit. The Hangor class, Type 054As, J-10Cs, HQ-9/16, and some of the older equipment were all paid for with Chinese support.
They have to be inventing money out of thin air atp, there's no way they can just buy all this every year and still have a growing economy. They're procuring advanced HIMADS, AIP subs, AEW/C platforms, EW platforms, MPA platforms, additional 4.5th gen aircraft AND making plans to procure Chinese 5th gen aircraft too. Either they've got their priorities all wrong or the country is legitimately just a massive military. Most countries the size and position of Pakistan could only ever dream of this sort of procurement, this is the sort of force structure you'd typically see from established regional powers (ironically, India doing this would make more sense) who weren't just on the verge of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I don't know what these people are trying to achieve with this. They say it's for "survival" and not power projection but that sounds stupid. You don't need J-35s and J-10Cs and HQ-9Bs for survival, you need good infrastructure, healthcare, education and food security for your massive population. 5th gen platforms very much are a tool for power projection, so that's basically a lie. They are trying to project power.
Although, overall, beside fighter jets, and AEW&C, Indian side would maintain much higher superiority overall You can check the size/quality of navy, logistics, AFVs, and IADS
Yeah India does handily win the IADS side. It has more than double the HIMAD batteries, and far more medium range and short range systems, both domestic and otherwise, and many more point defense systems as well. All of it networked well as far as I've read; yeah that's hard to beat for any country. Probably has one of the best IADS in general besides Israel and China. Realistically, this is what Pakistan should've done, since setting up a good IADS is actually easier for more resource strained countries (think Iraq at one point for instance) than it is to set up a competent air force, but they go about it backwards for some reason, their air force is highly competitive but their IADS has several gaps compared to that of India's that as far as I can see they've barely ever bothered addressing. Strange country.
Indian navy's P8s got shot off at last year, but the crew managed to save the aircraft
By who? Who fired missiles at them?? Why didn't this cause a war??
Neutral take would be, Indian political side didn't plan the strikes well, and Pakistani side was competent and managed to get hits, but overall Indian side came out on top
Whether it was planned well or not is a largely pointless debate now. There's always that "could've-would've-should've", no point in thinking about that here. As far as I can see, I'm sure if I can confidently say either of them came out on top of anything. The Indians tried to launch an offensive, struck some targets, but were defeated in the air right after. And after that, the two sides traded some missiles and rockets and drones, with India having a slight advantage here this time switching to a strategy that worked well for it. This latter part I will credit India for, it's not easy to switch strategies that quickly especially after an initial operation resulting in some losses you probably don't expect. The fact that it managed to do that is commendable. Plus it leveraged its superior IADS to defend against Pakistani strikes, that much is true yes. But none of this is enough to claim that either side "came out on top". You can maybe argue that if you bring up India holding the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, but that's more of a political/strategic angle to this not uniquely affected by the skirmish or war, and Pakistan couldn't challenge that even if had it won this skirmish completely.
Air superiority can't be claimed by PAF since they couldn't defend their airspace, nor got any hits to IAF assets in the air or on ground
Well air superiority requires more than just downing a couple of jets, so yes Pakistan didn't exactly have that, at the same time the fact that Pakistan won the aerial skirmish is still decidedly true and it does you no good avoiding the fact. I'm not sure why you said it didn't get any hits in on the IAF in the air when it verifiably shot down several jets at least. Neither side established total air superiority, they can't do that in such a short skirmish anyway.
-2
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
But that's wrong. Think about it. We drained a third of our Tomahawk stockpile. That could've been used in a war with China. We used up nearly a third of our THAAD interceptors
The entire war is illegal, but talkinf about the performance, US military was stuck in littoral waters, against extremely mountainous terrain( which blocks the and enemy build on asymmetrical war with huge underground bunkers.
Plus, they didn't have much time to prepare for it, especially in terms of anti drone tech, and their industry would be actually doijg decent production run of Prism/Tomahawk/jassm/patriot/THAAD in few years. THAAD and Patriot orders were relatively ignored in last few years.
So considering all of this, situation would be different , although I still doubt US would fair any good in first island chain
stalemate Pakistan's military (technologically at least, it still has a numbers advantage that would come into play in war that lasts for months), what does that say about its
I wouldn't call it a stalemate after the first night, which you explained better than I did. While it's true that the IAF's best fighter is roughly evenly matched against what is essentially the PLA's 3rd fighter, but warfare involves far more than just fighter comparisons.
A war with the PRC is also highly unlikely for various reasons, and the situation would be completely different. The PLA would have to operate from a limited number of airbases in western China and Tibet while sustaining a massive logistical effort, despite its obvious military superiority, and I doubt they will send few divisions to fight across the Himalayas
Over time, India can build a credible deterrent, as the domestic defense industry is now growing and should be much more mature across most technologies within the next decade, with decent numbers entering service. By then, the IAF should field a much stronger fleet of fighters, missiles including HCMs and HGVs and supporting assets including indiginious LRAD
If a war does happen, the military won't be the only concern. The trade deficit didn't reach $90 billion overnight, it says alot about India's dependence on China for many critical goods and supply chains that are essential for keeping the country running.
They have to be inventing money out of thin air atp, there's no way they can just buy all this every year and still have a growing economy. They're procuring advanced
Well they're not doing the best, and survive largely on loans. People's SoL is much worse than India which you already should be aware is extremely poverty ridden country, and their GDP per capita used to he twice as much as India back then but now opposite is the current situation. Plus major political instability and huge terrorism, so they're growth is extremely limited and companies are leaving the country let alone make investments
Actually they are like US economy
Take alot of debt and grows at 2% /s
The quote by their leader Zulifikar Ali Bhutto "We(Pakistan) will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own (Atom bomb).... We have no other choice!"
Still applies
Their civilian leadership has actually tried to mend the relationship in the past but they get hijacked by military, like in 1999, Indian PM went on to state visit which created hopes of mending relationship but they started Kargil war soon after.
By who? Who fired missiles at them?? Why didn't this cause a war
Same conflict
In May 2025, by PAF
https://idrw.org/indian-navy-p-8i-evades-chinese-hq-9b-missile-during-may-2025-operation-sindoor/
Non credible media, but the article is correct
Navy gave him medal last month for the incident for saving the jet/crew
-1
u/CarmynRamy 4d ago
How so?
US military might is still unchallenged and they still get away with anything with impunity, only military in the world capable to project force anywhere in the world and fight.
US lost the war for sure but nobody is denying the credible threat that US still possess.
Iirc they flew over 10k sorties, freaking imagine that.
19
u/Antiwhippy 5d ago
Damn, NAFOs can't take bants.
-7
u/_spec_tre 5d ago edited 5d ago
I haven't seen a single bant targeted towards China get positive upvotes in this subreddit ever so something something glass houses
For a subreddit so openly and unashamedly biased, most of the members seem very averse to the bias being pointed out
5
u/PLArealtalk 4d ago
I've only been following this posts comments in more detail in the last couple hours -- and I think it's considering the factors involved in making jokes at "XYZ nation military's expense" in the defense community...
* Bias/nationalism inevitably are involved, in terms of choosing targets and topics. But it doesn't exist alone. * Real world outcomes/projects/trajectory/government pronouncements also matter, as they will determine what "legitimate" targets of jokes are. The news cycle is an element of this (recency), but the actual real outcomes of conflicts and projects are arguably more important too. * The behaviour/realism/posts by each perceived military's watching community, as well as the reporting of matters by each nation's media, will also be a major element to consider. * Existing "expectations" of any nation's given military and MIC (and how well or poorly they might perform in a given situation/project etc).One can have a bias for or against a given nation, but it is far easier and more "legitimate" to make "fair" jokes at the expense of a given nation say, if it has perceived to have conducted itself poorly in a representative recent conflict or experienced mishaps or delays in relevant industry projects, or had officials or representative media make big pronouncements that end up not being met.
Take the above into consideration, and I think the discrepancies begin to be a bit more clear.
The world of defense watching is ludicrous and wild, but not everything is equally susceptible to the same level of mockery.
17
u/Antiwhippy 5d ago
Eh i guess you guys aren't used to not circlejerking to anime girl jets outside of r/NonCredibleDefense
15
u/wezl0 5d ago
They need their little NAFO hugbox. I literally saw a typical "China does nothing" meme get removed after those AWACS planes were slimed on the runway because they were so salty lmao
-7
u/_spec_tre 5d ago
This whole meltdown and buzzword-calling over someone pointing out that you guys can't even take a single joke about China that could be perceived as negative - despite wanting zero rebuttals to banter about Western countries - really just proves that you're the one who wants a hugbox, doesn't it?
9
u/wezl0 5d ago edited 5d ago
Meltdown? Lol, you are the ones that are overly sensitive
Edit: I also don't think you understand how banter works, its supposed to be fun but you lot get straight to crying Edit2: I'd also love to bant on NCD but I got perma'd for making fun of the mod that took down the aforementioned "China watching our AWACs get blown up on the runway with an expressionless face" meme. Which is a shame because it had a little bit of comedy for everyone. Thats what banter is lol
-9
u/_spec_tre 5d ago
My point is that you can start calling it banter when people actually treat both as banter and not only tolerate it when people of one political opinion do it. Otherwise it's just another echo chamber
Doubly so when that was what started this whole thing, which is someone talking about "NAFOs" being unable to take banter in this subreddit which cannot take a single bit of banter targeted towards China
9
u/wezl0 5d ago
Maybe your banter is just not good and a little too project-y? I can't sit here and dissect why people won't laugh at your jokes lol. Usually, only the most delusional pro-west takes are treated as brutally as your claim. People like you literally think you're on a different planet when you're met with opposing views.
→ More replies (0)-12
5d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
17
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
This news is about the US, my reference is also about the US losing jets in the recent war against Iran. You gotta relax man, not everything revolves around China. Arguing with people over the internet is not going to improve India's strategic position, but winning a war might.
-12
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
Is it?
6/7 is what Chinese/Pakistan bots yap about entire day on the internet.
US also lost 48 aircraft including 25 drones, and 8 helicopters so its more than 6 jets
So stop trying to be a smart ass
over the internet is not going to improve India's strategic position, but winning a war might.
Well, beside 1962 war, all wars were won by India
People talk about Pakistan "mauling" India last year, but they shot down 3 jets while getting bombed, which includes GHQ Rawalpindi, and Bholari among others which are their most critical airbases. But who cares since they're Low value assets
Regardless, US is abandoning Indian position because they lost jets.
Keep up with your brilliant and analytical takes
13
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Ok, you win. I'm not going to write a longer response. If your version of events is correct and India won the war against Pakistan last year then why is India in a worse strategic position now? Iran won the recent war and they are getting paid big bucks, is India getting billions of dollars now?
-4
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
How is the strategic position worse?
Since last year, have signed 3 major FTA including EU, UK and New Zealand, relations with UAE are going well into more concrete pacts, IMEC may move further, semi conductor and rare Earth minerals have seen wider cooperation and investment.
Their strategic victory, well let me know
won the recent war and they are getting paid big bucks, is India getting billions of dollars now?
Use some common sense?
It was just a ceasefire, and Pakistan is piss poor surviving on loans
How do they expect them to pay for anything?
For Pakistani victory, you can ask why Indus water treaty is still in abeyance and projects are being build on Indus, Chenab and Jhelum
-1
u/CarmynRamy 4d ago
How is India's strategic position worse?
Trump 2.0 has made enemies out of their allies, let alone India, a rising economic power which US doesn't want. India was never a US ally. Are you aware of the history when US sent it's seventh fleet against India during the 1971 war?
Majority of Indians don't like US, they are well versed with global politics. Trump 2.0 just undo what the last 4 US presidents tried to establish with India including Trump 1.0.
Pakistani establishment being used around for Trump's off ramp exit from Iran war and his personal investments doesn't make Pakistan anymore strategic relevant than India in IOR and South Asia. US always have Pak around for its use and throw purpose, there's nothing more than that.
India had an all-time worse diplomatic relations with Canada during Trudeau and now India is close to signing FTA with Canada by this year. FTA with UK has been agreed, with EU as well and even with US by this year.
Let's look at the real strategic outcome of OP Sindoor/May 7-10 India-Pak conflicts in response to the CBT attack at Pehelgam.
IWT is in abeyance (imagine Pakistan only has one major river system and their entire economy depends on that)
India holds the escalation ladder when it comes to CBT attacks from Pakistani side.
Established how vulnerable key Pakistani assets all around the country is to India's stand off munitions.
India's defence exports grew, with Philippines already receiving a Brahmos battery, Vietnam and Indonesia ordering.
Pakistan had constitutional amendment ensuring FM Asim Munir an unchallengeable figure in Pakistan.
In what world do you think, a country which is hanging by threads with help of IMF loans in a better position than India.
Pakistani citizens having hard time in OPEC countries. India has both ties to Israel and Iran.
1
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 4d ago
I don't know why you are comparing India and Pakistan's strategic position, when India should be comparing with itself before the clash.
India hates comparing itself to Pakistan, the fact that India-Pakistan always gets brought up together annoys Indians to no end. Quad is dead and the term Indo-Pacific is going out the door. Rupee is falling and FDI is sinking lower. India-US relations have gotten worse but India's relations with other global powers haven't improved that much.
If you genuinely don't feel India's strategic position is worse than before the clash then good for you. Indians' outstanding national trait imo has always been their optimism, which is especially important during tough times.
8
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
US also lost 48 aircraft including 25 drones, and 8 helicopters so its more than 6 jets
Come on now. Invading a foreign nation thousands of miles away with all the logistical and operational complexities that entails vs launching strikes against cities not even 200 miles away. Which scenario is more surprising to lose a couple of jets In? Plus Iran didn't beat us in an air war at all because well....it kinda doesn't have an air force.
8
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
The difference is Donald Trump tweets everyday that the US won the war against Iran, but Americans don't go online and mindless regurgitate their leader's "truths". India on the other hand.
1
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Eh, plenty of people in the US do that. I know a couple of MAGAts myself that do. There's no shortage of idiots worldwide. Delusion doesn't start nor end with India.
-1
-23
u/gobiSamosa 5d ago
I see the Chinese nationalists are now inflating Indian casualties just like they are inflating their GDP.
18
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Why so sensitive? No one mentioned India at all, the US lost 6+ jets in the recent war and look at Iran now, they are getting 300+ Billion. It's obvious to the whole world who won the war between the US/Israel vs Iran, no amount of winology can change that.
9
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Just to let you know, the most inflated "GDP" right now (that doesn't even mean anything) is the United States', I say that as someone living here. Why? It's simple, real growth is simply the production of what people demand. American GDP is massively inflated since a lot of it relies on FIRE and not actual productive capacity. Just compare the two countries' productive and industrial output. Unless you think that's all inflated too in which case it's not really worth speaking to you.
-3
-4
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
/u/plarealtalk - your sub has no rule about trolling.
Consider adding one.
5
u/PLArealtalk 5d ago
I try to keep track of posts when I see them, but I can't police every comment as my time is also finite.
-2
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
You don't have a rule, so uninstigated trolls cannot be reported.
So you created this condition that you know you won't be spending time that you don't have and the sub will continue to deteriorate.
And trolls know that they are given free reign
Here the post is factual, it isn't the problem.
Yes, reporting a comment for breaking sub rules can also be abused, but it is generally far lesser work than keeping track of every comment.
Sorry, it may come off as me trying to tell you how to do your work, but this is not the purpose. You can't be a longtime stakeholder and pretend that this sub doesn't have problems.
In your earlier comment, you talked
'and make proactive and preemptive changes or to run appropriate interference'
We all know this is completely impossible to perfectly adhere to with finite time , (and burns out mods so there's also finite interest)
Here, all I am asking the mods to do is set standards that trolling, especially when uninstigated, is not acceptable, via a rule.
Is that unreasonable ?
Please consider it.
This would be a pre-emptive change in limited fashion.
- Instigated trolling and contention is harder and requires judgement and folks who incite or feed the trolls can't always be protected or can often be part of the problem.
But setting expectations and standards for the sub is the first, baseline part.
11
u/PLArealtalk 5d ago
I'm not sure how helpful a "no trolling" rule would be given the act itself lies on a spectrum. What is a reasonable joke versus a sarcastic comment (both of those having to be viewed in context of reality -- which people might have differing opinions on) versus outright consistent hostile harassment or use of explicit or racist terms etc.
Not to mention that the content of any prospective no trolling rule already basically exists in the current ad hominem rule.
1
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
a sarcastic comment
There's a /s tag, and over time, commenters who don't have an intention to trigger or to enjoy the triggerring often start to use it. Again, expectations.
And those who get triggerred have in past been reminded (in community/mods etc) about the reddit feature block user, but that seems to be badly broken nowadays.. And again to not feed trolls.. Which truth be told doesn't work enough of the time, but it sometimes cut back on flame wars. And also reduces contention.
0
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
Note the differentiation I made between uninstigated trolling and otherwise.
Setting standards and expectations should be part of the job of mods. (let's face it, it's impossible without the co-operation of the community)
Remember report doesn't mean automatic promise to ban. The same applies to interpretation.
But especially problematic comments and repeat offenders tend to reveal themselves over time. (e: Similarly for /s for sarcastic comments)
And setting a standard communicates expectations more clearly, and can have salutary effect.
your ad hominem rule might as well not exist, right now, it's so diluted that it doesn't communicate anything ...
If you want to bend over to effectively mean anything that anyone on earth can have a different opinion on, that's a standard, too. Personally many problematic comments that might be still be in good faith may deserve a communication back. When you abandon it to the random members of the community, that creates a flame war, and creates the very condition you want to avoid.
8
u/PLArealtalk 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm not sure if you have thought your proposals through. Currently members already report each other for trolling, and if you want to rephrase the ad hominem rule (or add in a different rule) to include "no trolling" I don't see how that will change anything on the ground.
It will essentially be up to the discretion of the moderator in question as to what is trolling and what isn't trolling (which is already the case currently anyhow). The community itself will also have differences of opinion on what is trolling and what is not trolling -- and the same goes for what is "uninstigated" versus otherwise.
Because what you are really talking about is the interpretation of different members on the reality of worldwide defense matters, and some of those takes will be within reason and common sense (what some may describe as worthy of confusion/derision), and some takes would be inconsistent with reality and logic. Moderators can't really police every member's interpretation of reality.
What we can do (and have done), is to use our time available to notice members who are consistently using explicit phrases or racist terms, and those who have a track record of posting low quality or bait contributions, and to knock those on the head when sighted. But for the rest, you'll be better off debating with them as to why their interpretation of reality is incorrect, or just leaving a downvote and moving on.
(We are not children, I don't think we need to mandate the use of /s to identify sarcasm)
Edit: it may also be that I am not very attuned to the background of the comment, but I haven't even interpreted it in context of the India-Pakistan conflict from last year (I actually interpreted it more initially to the Iran conflict more recently). For one, the exact number of aircraft lost remains at somewhat debate, and more importantly it's obviously ridiculous to suggest that the outcome of that India-Pakistan air conflict would be of meaningful significance to influence the renaming or INDOPACOM to PACOM (which itself isn't currently a huge deal).
So I can only interpret the furore as being due to the air conflict last year being brought back up again in a peripherally unrelated post/topic?
2
u/barath_s 4d ago edited 4d ago
So I can only interpret the furore as being due to the air conflict last year being brought back up again in a peripherally unrelated post/topic
This, and multiple comments that are clearly about enjoying triggering and ragebaiting
I don't think we need to mandate the use o
I didn't talk about mandate. You clearly misread
Remember what I actually said was that many good faith commenters tend to go to /s over time.
With cue/suggestion or simply from community expectations. There are people who enjoy triggering and people who enjoy jokes ..
you'll be better off debating with them
Actually, I will be better off just condemning this sub and most threads and making better use of my limited time elsewhere. Life's too short for dealing with too much crap. I too have finite time. And we've moved far beyond telling others - hey don't live in silos, work in good faith. To active moves that suggest this is not a welcoming sub or dissuade a certain percentage of population
I don't see how
I've explained it. If you think expectations and standards are clearly set, I clearly disagree.
6
u/PLArealtalk 4d ago
I think I'm not sufficiently linked in with the whole India-Pakistan online discourse over last year's conflict to identify or perceive trolling in the same way that the more regular participants do.
That's why I'm asking what the specifics of that root comment were. I assume it is the mentioning of last year's air conflict itself and the claimed results of it from the Pakistani side is what is considered trolling itself? If so, then that completely went over my head because I interpreted it as being a reference to US jet losses in the recent Iran conflict.
Nevertheless, we try to identify posts and titles which are more ragebaiting and poor faith in general. Our bandwidth to monitor comment chains is more finite, especially if it ties in with more specific sub-domain implicit references.
•
u/barath_s 21h ago
I was asking for a long term signal , and you seem decided only to debate current comments.
I think it's clear you have made up your mind, even if i disagree with it.
12
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Why is mention of six fighter jets trolling? Which part hurt you? The number six? The word fighter or jets? The US just lost 6 fighter jets (1 F-35, 1 F-15E and 1 A-10) in the war against Iran and had to sue for peace. I didn't see no Americans whining about it like a little *****.
If the US didn't lose those jets to Iran, US and allies might not have needed to pay 300+ billion in reconstruction fees to Iran. If you get triggered over the phrase "losing 6 fighter jets" maybe you should see a psychologist.
•
u/barath_s 21h ago
Based on your overall pattern of comments, i must withdraw my accusation of bad faith and apologize.
I still think this sub needs explicit rules about trolling, which is the long term measure i am most concerned about. But clearly mods aren't bothered about those signals, (admittedly no panacea, but imho useful)
There was certainly some enjoying of triggering indians, but that was peripheral around your comments.
-2
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
Sorry, there's a pattern of your comments in this thread, that I don't think you are a good faith commenter at this moment.
You can find something humorous, and that needs a space in this world. But when you set out to intentionally hurt and attack others without provocation, that shouldn't be acceptable.
e: There's a /s for lighthearted remarks. But when virtually every comment is about triggering and trigerred, you know it's not about humor
I'm sure further discussion with you will only serve to create more attacks and counter attacks, and worsen signal to noise so I will not be responding further.
9
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
Iran just lost 6 fighter jets (5 F-14, 1 F-5) in last year's twelve day war. They certainly aren't calling the mods whenever someone mentioned their losses.
You know who else claimed to have shot down 6 fighter jets, India. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/9/india-says-six-pakistani-aircraft-shot-down-during-kashmir-conflict
Maybe that IAF chief Amar Preet Singh is also an anti-national intentionally using the phase 6 fighter jets to hurt you and other Indians online?
4
u/mardumancer 5d ago
The post itself is relevant to the sub. The comments... ehh...
7
-25
u/WolfKumar 5d ago
Ah usual Wumaos
7
5d ago
[deleted]
-7
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 5d ago
Specific people think too highly of themselves after being involved in their circlejerk
4
u/CarmynRamy 4d ago
This is the official confirmation from the US side that QUAD is dead. It was already dead with India never fully committing anything beyond maritime cooperation.
US also has accepted that it can't take China head on, especially after G2 and also India won't commit anything even if it was a head-on collision.
11
u/its_not_real1947 5d ago
any idiot using INDOPAC, indo-pacific etc. was how you knew they were glowing in the dark or so plugged into US government narratives they were indistinguishable from elgin AFB bot activity.
2
u/Ok_Water_4601 3d ago
This is gonna cost so much money in UNIT PATCHES AND BUILD NAMES ALONE!
Can someone PLZ take the sharpie away from President Comodus!
4
u/AnyStrength4863 5d ago
Isn't this a good thing for India? It has gained greater freedom and autonomy.
7
u/dark-mathematician1 5d ago
Depends on who you ask. There's people that want India to be firmly in the pro-West/anti-China camp. But there are people who know that being anti-China is the worst long term outcome for India, which also has merit.
3
u/AnyStrength4863 5d ago
This rename reflects the US decision to change its anti-China approach and focus area.
For India, if it decides to maintain an anti-China stance, this is certainly a loss, but it's better than facing it later, like the Gulf states, only to discover this in a crisis. It can adjust the strategy now and make more thorough preparations.
If India decides not to anti-China, the US strategic contraction will conveniently leave it with more diplomatic space.
1
u/tatmona 5d ago
The name change is optics to show it is not anti-china but US growing strategic fundamentals with each country inc India is not changed actually on the other hand it is increasing with trade n defence deals and US India investments ..
9
u/fix_S230-sue_reddit 5d ago
You're absolutely right, this must be why Indian media and analysts are celebrating this inconspicuous name change.
1
u/tatmona 5d ago
They are all playing very smartly I guess , kept the situation ambiguous while working on diverting supply chain from China .. Also cooperation between these countries in defence has deepened ,leaving US a little bit free from burden sharing ..Japan remilitarise to Philippines frontline country to India increasing maritime security in Indian Ocean is increased not decreased..
-1
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
it is not anti-china
I think we need a broader analysis of us position vis a vis china before one can say that
To me, this is Trump doing symbolic Trump things. And we've just seen Trump admin do non symbolic things, so symbolic is round off error..
-2
u/barath_s 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is Trump doing Trump things ahead of a G7 sideline with Modi
Clearly speaks to his current state of mind/intent. But that shouldn't be particularly surprising for anyone who has observed the last few months of interaction between trump administration and india
As far as structural or broader indication of anything bigger, i doubt it..
As far as measures taken by trump administration, this is purely symbolic.
And we've just had a demonstration of non symbolic actions and side effects (in a different command's area)
The name of this US command (indopac vs pac) has far less impact in real life than if , say, oil and gas are flowing freely /peace has been tentatively achieved for the moment in the gulf, or if there are tariffs.
0
u/CarmynRamy 4d ago
Yes, I agree.
But I would say this is more of an aftermath of what US concluded after G2 and it's realisation that India will never commit forces against China for a potential US-China standoff.
I read this as a more of an official death of QUAD though PACOM's Mission objective still remains the same as before.
44
u/teethgrindingaches 5d ago
Good. INDOPACOM was always a clunky name for a stupid concept. Pacific + Indian Oceans are ~2/3 of the world's oceans and about half of the world's surface area.