NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't see that anyone else had made a post about this, and I'ver been thinking about it for a while now.

There has just been a huge earthquake in Pakistan, killing thousands of people and leaving people without houses, water or food. The military were deployed to help rescue people from the rubble.

As opposed to the flooding in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane, where the military were sent in with guns, and ended up involved in gunfights.

My question is; why did the American Military get sent in with guns and prove to be (relatively) ineffective, while the Indian Army (for example) prove efficient?

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but you can see how the military efficency and reactions differed.

I couldn't see that anyone else had made a post about this, and I'ver been thinking about it for a while now.

There has just been a huge earthquake in Pakistan, killing thousands of people and leaving people without houses, water or food. The military were deployed to help rescue people from the rubble.

As opposed to the flooding in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane, where the military were sent in with guns, and ended up involved in gunfights.

My question is; why did the American Military get sent in with guns and prove to be (relatively) ineffective, while the Indian Army (for example) prove efficient?

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but you can see how the military efficency and reactions differed.

Not much different:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1199885

Shopkeepers clashed with looters Monday, and hungry families huddled under tents while waiting for relief supplies after Pakistan's worst earthquake razed entire villages and buried roads in rubble. Death toll estimates ranged from 20,000 to 30,000.

In a reminder that the disputed Kashmir region is in the grip of an Islamic insurgency, suspected militants killed 10 people, including four Hindus whose throats were slit in three quake-hit villages, said J.P. Singh, senior superintendent of police.

Granted, but I mean military reaction.

I couldn't see that anyone else had made a post about this, and I'ver been thinking about it for a while now.

There has just been a huge earthquake in Pakistan, killing thousands of people and leaving people without houses, water or food. The military were deployed to help rescue people from the rubble.

As opposed to the flooding in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane, where the military were sent in with guns, and ended up involved in gunfights.

My question is; why did the American Military get sent in with guns and prove to be (relatively) ineffective, while the Indian Army (for example) prove efficient?

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but you can see how the military efficency and reactions differed.
You need to provide some proof of all these assertions. I never heard of any "gunfight" in which the US military were involved in New Orleans, for example. :rolleyes:

you probably shouldn't call the pakistani army the indian army

they are involved in their own little cold (ish) war

You need to provide some proof of all these assertions. I never heard of any "gunfight" in which the US military were involved in New Orleans, for example. :rolleyes:


There was one when a NG almost had his rifle stolen and got shot in the leg. I think there were one or two others. No major confrontations though.

BTW, how many are the victims and damages of Katrina??

How is that weeks later we haven't anything clear, while a day after in Pakistan, and in Central America, we've got estimations every hour?

Is the New York alert a distraction to make people forget it?

BTW, how many are the victims and damages of Katrina??

How is that weeks later we haven't anything clear, while a day after in Pakistan, and in Central America, we've got estimations every hour?

Is the New York alert a distraction to make people forget it?

Forget what?

Yeah, the news just said the Indian army; the earthquake affected both countries, so I was jut naming one x)

I thought they did o.o Ah well. They still went in fully armed though, I believe.

My question is; why did the American Military get sent in with guns and prove to be (relatively) ineffective, while the Indian Army (for example) prove efficient?

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but you can see how the military efficency and reactions differed.

Well, for one, the Indian army is already heavily deployed in the area and as per Indian system of governance, civilian authorities (added later: local/state civilian authorities) can call army for help without invloving the central govt, which cuts through many layers of bureaucracy.

Also, many divisions have seperate sectors which are under their control and the individual majors and those in command took it upon themselves to organize relief efforts.

Hence the relief operations were started in a matter of hours on the Indian side. The Indian army has a fine tradition on humanitarian efforts.

Our navy was in Colombo port three hours after tsunami struck SriLanka. Our army and navy was deployed in Mumbai within 3 hours during the recent cloudburst and flooding of Mumbai.

On the Pakistani side, the damage is more and also the relief has been slow, despite their army being heavily deployed in the area. They have a very strict top-down approach in military and hence they are very overwhelmed currently.