India dropped bombs and missiles on Pakistan but US companies worth billions of dollars are in trouble due to…
Home
News
India dropped bombs and missiles on Pakistan but US companies worth billions of dollars are in trouble due to…
India dropped bombs and missiles on Pakistan but US companies worth billions of dollars are in trouble due to…
The Pinaka rockets of India come at cost of $56,000 which is very less compared to the U.S. GMLRS missile at $148,000.
US President Donald Trump
While India conducted Operation Sindoor on Pakistan, the world saw what the Indian Armed Forces where capable of. While Pakistan tried to attack India with its long-range missiles, India's indigenous Akash Defence Missile saved India on multiple occasions. However, this article is not only about the indigenous 'Made in India' weapons that saved India but also a direct analysis about their costs compared to their US rivals.
Media reports have quoted experts like John Spencer and Vincent Viola writing in Small Wars Journal saying that India's 2014 Make in India initiative has now borne fruit, and due to its massive success, India is today able to manufacture the weapons at a much lesser cost.
India's weapons vs US weapons
For an example, the Pinaka rockets of India come at cost of $56,000 which is very less compared to the U.S. GMLRS missile at $148,000. Likewise, India's Akashteer missile defense system is also far cheaper than America's NASAMS, significantly improving its indigenous defense production.
As a result of the Indian defence success, American defence industry like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technology and General Dynamics are facing massive trouble.
BSF shares details on Operation Sindoor
The Border Security Force recently said that it targeted 76 Pakistani border outposts and 42 forward defence locations (FDLs) and destroyed three terrorist launch pads in strong retaliation to unprovoked firing and shelling by Pakistani Rangers along the International Border (IB) in the Jammu frontier during Operation Sindoor, as per a report by PTI news agency.
The BSF action came after Pakistan launched heavy firing and shelling on 60 Indian posts and 49 forward positions, reportedly providing cover for an attempted infiltration by 40–50 terrorists, officials said.
'Pakistan fired on our 60 border outposts and 49 forward defence locations. In response, we opened fire on 76 of their posts and 42 FDLs,' BSF Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Chiterpaul Singh told reporters here.
Singh said a key terror launch pad run by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) near the Sunderbani sector was destroyed. 'There is no movement seen from that area now,' he said.
(With inputs from agencies)
For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest News News on India.com.
More Stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Shashi Tharoor disappointed over Colombia's stand on Operation Sindoor, says, 'here to dispel misunderstanding'
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has expressed disappointment over Colombia's recent statement on the Indian military strikes under Operation Sindoor. The Indian airstrikes targeted known terrorist camps, but Colombia's government later extended condolences for the loss of lives in Pakistan. Speaking to reporters in Bogotá, Tharoor said, 'We are here looking for understanding... We have the impression that perhaps the situation was not fully understood when that one statement was made.' 'Understanding is extremely important for us,' he continued. 'We are a country which has really been a force for constructive progress in the world.' Tharoor underlined that India's response was a matter of self-defence and not aggression. 'We certainly hope that other governments will tell those who give safe haven and protection to terrorists to stop doing so. That would be very helpful indeed, as well in the Security Council or outside it,' he added. During his address, Tharoor urged Colombia to reconsider how it views the conflict. 'We will say to our friends in Colombia, there can be no equivalence between those who dispatch terrorists and those who resist them,' he said. 'There can be no equivalence between those who attack and those who defend. We are only exercising our right of self-defence.' He emphasised the purpose of the visit was to clear up any confusion. 'If there is any misunderstanding here on this core, we are here to dispel any such misunderstanding,' Tharoor said. 'We're very happy to talk to Colombia in some detail about the circumstances.' Tharoor also pointed out that India has evidence linking the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan-based terror groups. 'We have, as I said, very concrete proof. In fact, when this terrorist attack occurred, it was immediately claimed by an organisation called The Resistance Front, which is a unit of the Lashkar-e-Taiba base in Muridke, Pakistan,' the Thiruvananthapuram MP said. Drawing a comparison between the two countries, he concluded, 'Just as Colombia has endured many terror attacks, so have we in India. We have endured a very large number of attacks for almost four decades.' The Indian delegation is expected to meet Colombian officials to discuss the issue further and present its side of the story. Tharoor is currently in Bogotá as part of an Indian foreign outreach delegation following Operation Sindoor, launched in response to a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 people.
Economic Times
20 minutes ago
- Economic Times
'This kind of outrage could not go unpunished', Shashi Tharoor emphasises on 'new normal' in Colombia
ANI Shashi Tharoor emphasises on 'new normal' in Colombia Reiterating India's firm stance against terrorism, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Thursday (local time) said that the country decided that the Pahalgam terror attack could not go unpunished and launched strikes against terrorist infrastructure under Operation Sindoor. Addressing the media at Bogota, Tharoor said, "India suffered a grievous terrorist attack on the 22nd of April... When this happened, of course, the world rose up to condemn the terrorist attack, but that was as far as it went. There was no action taken, not even by the country where these people had emerged from, Pakistan. Nobody was arrested, and there was no attempt at any prosecution. India decided that this kind of outrage could not go unpunished. On May 7, India chose to strike against known terror bases and launch pads."Tharoor also showed the picture of PakistArmy officials attending the funerals of terrorists after India's strike on their terror bases. Tharoor said Pakistan provides terrorists a safe haven to continue their training."There (in Pakistan) was a well-publicised funeral of one of the terrorists on the sanctions list. That funeral was attended by uniformed senior military and police personnel from Pakistan. That is the extent of complicity that we are seeing between the terrorists who perpetrate crimes of this nature and those who finance, guide, train, arm, and equip them and do provide them safe haven to continue their training and their other awful deeds," he said. Tharoor expressed disappointment with the Colombian government for expressing condolences over the loss of lives in Pakistan, rather than sympathising with the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack. "We were a little disappointed in the reaction of the Colombian government, which apparently expressed heartfelt condolences on the loss of lives in Pakistan after the Indian strikes, rather than sympathising with the victims of terrorism," he Congress MP, who is leading a multiparty delegation to Colombia, stated that India is only exercising our right of self-defence. "We will say to our friends in Colombia, there can be no equivalence between those who dispatch terrorists and those who resist them. There can be no equivalence between those who attack and those who defend. We are only exercising our right of self-defence, and if there is any misunderstanding here on this core, we are here to dispel any such misunderstanding. We're very happy to talk to Colombia about the circumstances in detail. We have, as I said, very concrete proof. In fact, when this terrorist attack occurred, it was immediately claimed by an organisation called The Resistance Front, which is a unit of the Lashkar-e-Taiba base in Muridke, Pakistan," Tharoor said. Shashi Tharoor-led delegation includes Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayagi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejaswi Surya, Bhubaneswar Kalita (all from BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), former Indian Ambassador to the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, and Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora.
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The pause on tariffs, and now a stay: where does this leave Trump's disruptive trade agenda
Hours after US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on goods imported into America from almost every nation was ruled illegal by the US Court of International Trade, an appeals court – the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC that has jurisdiction over the trade court – on Thursday temporarily halted the decision, reinstating the levies for now. Its order said that it would grant the Trump administration's request for an immediate administrative stay, and gave the plaintiffs — a group of 12 states and five US-based companies — until June 5 to respond to the administration. Judicial Process As the Trump administration's appeal works its way through the American courts, what is clear is that this case will probably end up at the US Supreme Court at some point in the near future. The three judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, which included one Trump appointee, had ruled unanimously that the statute the White House used, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA – does not grant the American President the authority to impose tariffs with a really wide scope as were levied through Trump's reciprocal tariffs on practically all major trading partners of the US. They said in the ruling that the emergency economic powers legislation (IEEPA) does not give 'unbounded tariff authority' to the President, and that the statute can only be used for unusual and extraordinary threats. Trade deficit, they said, does not really fit that definition. At the same time, there are sector specific tariffs that the Trump administration slapped on steel, aluminum, cars and car parts etc, under a different statute known as Section 232, which could be used in the near future for things such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals too. Those were all imposed citing national security reasons, and were distinct from the tariffs under IEEPA. Those can all stay in place for the moment, and there is a chance that the Trump administration would now use provisions such as Section 232 to impose such sector-specific tariffs on countries, especially if the Federal Circuit court were to also rule against the IEEPA levies. What needs to be kept in mind is that apart from this case at the International Trade Court filed by the dozen other states and some small businesses, there is another high-profile case in California from the Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom arguing that Trump's trade tariffs were illegal. This, according to legal experts, is the case to watch out for. Ensuing Uncertainty In the meantime, what is unclear is whether business should ultimately plan for relief if the trade court's ruling stands, or whether the tariffs might stick. That raises the real question about whether the so-called reciprocal tariffs due in July will ever come into effect, whether the 10 per cent universal tariff can stay, whether the US Congress will come to the president's rescue, and what the final judgement of the Supreme Court will be. This course will decide whether nations need to negotiate for deals with the US. And during the appeals process, the Trump administration could seek alternate routes to deploy additional tariffs, according to experts. This could add to the uncertainties. The earlier ruling halting the imposition of the levies serves to undermine ongoing attempts by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate trade deals with other countries, including India. The UK is looking somewhat imprudent in having already rushed into a trade deal with the US, which retains the 10 per cent base rate that was part of Trump's original plan. This is despite the US have a trade surplus with the UK. Others such as Japan and the European Union were already holding back, after seeing the Trump administration beat a retreat amid an upheaval in the US government borrowing rates. The legal uncertainty is a further reason for countries to wait and watch. With negotiators from the US set to arrive in New Delhi for trade talks on June 5-6, officials in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said they are 'studying the implications' of the US Court of International Trade's Wednesday ruling. Trump had on April 2 announced a steep 26 per cent reciprocal tariff on India, despite New Delhi agreeing to commence negotiations with Washington on a trade deal. The tariffs were paused till July 8, and the Indian government is keen to sign an interim trade deal before that. The legal developments, though, could warrant a recalibration now. Legal experts are of the view that the Trump administration could have a weak case, especially when it comes to the question of law on IEEPA. Constitutionally, in America, trade policy is the domain of the US Congress and the chairs of the Trade committees of the House and Senate (branches of the Ways and Means Committee) are typically very powerful positions. President Trump bypassed all of that by proclaiming a variety of national emergencies. While he has some scope to act in actual emergencies, under powers ceded by the US COngress to the White House over the decades, these two specific cases contend that the sweeping use of these powers to announce permanent tariff changes was illegal and unconstitutional. That could hold water. The Court of International Trade ruling appears rather robust from that perspective, and also emboldens California's similar case. For now, it would be prudent to expect other negotiators around the world to put their feet up and wait, while the White House tries to prove the legality of the very basis of its global trade onslaught. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
