Early Warning And Response Systems Program Proposal Cover Letter: Fill & Download for Free

Q. How has the Vietnam War benefited the Soviet Union?A. TL;DRBoth Moscow and Beijing hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere. Not only would the rise of Asian communism help tip the balance against the West in the Cold War, it would also serve Soviet and Chinese national interests. Vietnam was a costly proxy war. Soviet aid totaled about 2 million dollars a day.The Soviet Union had three clear objectives regarding the Vietnam conflict: to maintain the advantages of peaceful cooperation with the US; to support national liberation movements and their role in the eventual final victory of communism; and to reduce the influence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the world communist movement.Soviet Aid to North VietnamThe Soviet Union had three clear objectives regarding the Vietnam conflict: to maintain the advantages of peaceful cooperation with the US; to support national liberation movements and their role in the eventual final victory of communism; and to reduce the influence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the world communist movement. The PRC was a major factor from the Soviet position. Moscow was ostensibly "pressing" for negotiations while watching the protracted conflict sap the strength of its major international foe. Washington's repeated use of bombing just after proposing an initiative for reducing the hostilities undermined Moscow's credibility.North Vietnam initially acknowledged the Soviet Union as leader of the "socialist camp" and accorded Moscow first place in its eulogies of the Communist countries. Had there not been the Russian October Revolution, there would not have been an Indochinese Communist Party, the precursor of today's CPV. Had the Red Soviet troops not defeated German fascism and Japanese militarism, the 1945 August Revolution in Vietnam would never have occurred. Had the Soviet Union not been powerful, Vietnam would not have been able to defeat French colonialism, US imperialism and international reactionaryism.Comrade Ho Chi Minh, still in France at that time, was the first Vietnamese who, after reading the first draft of Lenin's thesis on national and colonial problems, realized the truth that, to save the country and liberate the nation, there was no other road than that of proletarian revolution. (Ho Chi Minh: "Forever Following the Road of Great Lenin," Su That Publishing House, Hanoi, 1970, page 51) From that moment, Marxism-Leninism spread to Vietnam.Ho Chi Minh wrote "The Great October Revolution Has Opened the Way to the Liberation of All Nations" [1 November 1967] "By following the path charted by the great Lenin, the path of the October Revolution, the Vietnamese have won very large victories. Therefore, the bond and the gratitude that the Vietnamese feel toward the glorious October Revolution, the great Lenin and the Soviet people are exceedingly deep."Since the rise of Communist China and the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations, however, North Vietnam maintained the position, as did other Communist states, that all "socialist" states are equal and independent. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that the Soviet Union has been an important contributor of economic and military aid, especially since early 1965 when Moscow initiated measures to improve Hanoi's "defense potential."Soviet emphasis on military intervention began with Soviet aid to Cuba and Vietnam. Both countries faced confrontations against the United States. Military aid to Egypt, Syria, and Iraq was directed at Israel, considered an outpost of American imperialism. Soviet military aid to Vietnam began after the Second World War to assist Ho Chi Minh in his struggle against returning French rule. This aid continued after Vietnam divided. North Vietnamese-backed guerrillas tried to overthrow the South Vietnamese government using this aid. Estimates of the total cost of the Soviet Union's support to the North Vietnam government range from $3.6 billion to $8 billion [in then-year U.S. dollars].The top leaders and other officials of the two governments had also consulted during visits to each other's capitals: President Ho Chi Minh in 1955 and 1957; Soviet Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan in 1956 and President Kliment Y. Voroshilov in 1957. At the 1960 Lao Dong Party Congress, Premier Pham Van Dong supported the Soviet Union's thesis on the possibility of avoiding open warfare with imperialist powers and on the tactical importance of peaceful coexistence with the West. For its part, the Soviet Communist Party representative declared his government's intention to broaden its cooperation with North Vietnam.An agreement signed with Moscow in December 1960 assured Hanoi of Soviet economic and technical assistance; a similar Soviet pledge was made in an agreement signed in September 1962. Between 1961 and late 1964, Hanoi's relations with Moscow were generally cordial, although there were indications, especially after March 1963, that Hanoi was inclined to agree with the militant position of Peiping in ideological disputes between Communist China and the Soviet Union.At the 16th session of the UN General Assembly (1961), the Soviet Union proposed that 1962 be declared the year of the total elimination of colonialism and demanded an end to wars of aggression, the dismantling of military bases overseas. During this period, various nations won large and continuous victories in their brave struggle.Beginning in November 1964, relations with the Soviet Union took a new turn, evidently because of Moscow's avowed intention to render active support to Hanoi in its political and military confrontation with the United States. On 17 November 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to send increased support to North Vietnam. This aid included aircraft, radar, artillery, air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, food and medical supplies. They also sent Soviet military personnel to North Vietnam-the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). Some 15,000 Soviet personnelserved in Indo-China as advisers and occasionally as combatants. The largest part of the Soviet adviser personnel were air defense officers.In February 1965 Soviet Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin visited Hanoi, accompanied by Air Chief Marshal Konstantin Vershinin, who was commander in chief of the Soviet air force and a deputy defense minister. A joint communique issued at the conclusion of his visit on February 10 announced that the two. governments had signed an agreement on measures for strengthening Hanoi's "defense potential." After returning to Moscow, Premier Kosygin said that his government had already taken necessary steps to implement the agreement. It appeared that the Soviet military aid consisted mainly of surface-to-air missiles (SAM's), jet fighters and technical advisers. In late March 1965 the Soviet Communist Party's first secretary, Leonid I. Brezhnev, announced that his government had been receiving "many applications" from Soviet citizens offering to serve as volunteers in Vietnam.Since 1965 the Soviet Union and Communist China had been haggling over the military aid each is providing North Vietnam and over the mechanics of moving Soviet aid to North Vietnam. The dispute was a facet of the broader Sino-Soviet conflict and was interwoven with issues arising from US-North Vietnamese negotiations. Parts of the continuing argument surfaced, periodically in polemical exchanges between Moscow and Peking.Both Moscow and Peking, throughout the dispute, had other considerations in mind in addition to North Vietnam's war needs. A paramount Soviet purpose was to use aid to Vietnam as a means of strengthening Moscow's influence over Hanoi and elsewhere at the expense of Peking. Sino-Soviet political enmity and military rivalry worked to limit to some extent what aid the North Vietnamese received and how they received it. Because of China's insistance on a right to inspect Soviet shipments in transit to North Vietnam, the Soviets appear to have held back or delayed shipment of some sophisticated military equipment. Third, both Moscow and Peking were constrained in their aid to North Vietnam by a desire to avoid a direct conflict with the US.The USSR repeatedly suggested that it believed the Chinese wish to provoke a conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States in the Gulf of Tonkin. A widely-distributed CPSU letter to other parties in February 1966 claimed that the Chinese sought such a conflict "in order to be able to, as they themselves say, 'observe the battle of the tigers while seated on the hill.'" In April 1966, the Soviet leaders circulated a document at the 23rd CPSU Congress which accused the Chinese of trying to force the Soviet Union to ship its military aid by sea and risk a clash with the Seventh Fleet, and thereby to force a Soviet-US showdown.The Hanoi government received continued support from Moscow on the political, military and economic fronts. Moscow endorsed the peace proposals of both Hanoi and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam. The Soviet Union, in agreements signed in July 1965 and December 1965, respectively, also pledged to give increased military and economic aid.In early March 1965 (presumably in accordance with the understandings Kosygin had reached with the Vietnamese in Hanoi in February) the Soviets proposed to send to the DRV by rail through China eight battalions of SAMs and four thousand Soviet advisors and technicians. The Chinese strongly objected, but they repeatedly claimed in April and May that it was North Vietnamese reluctance to accept Soviet personnel that had caused the offer to be rejected, On the other hand, the Soviets claimed that the Chinese were placing a limit on the transit of Soviet personnel. Under the influence of the mounting US bombing, the DRV prevailed upon China to permit a limited quota of Soviet SAM personnel to pass. It was not until 24 July 1965 that the SAMs were fired for the first time, by Soviet crews.In December 1965 the Soviet army newspaper, Red Star, reported for the first time that Soviet antiaircraft missiles had been supplied to North Vietnam. Still another Moscow pledge of military and economic assistance was made in an agreement signed in January 1966, when Aleksandr N. Shelepin, a member of the Soviet Communist Party Presidium and Secretariat, visited Hanoi.The extent of Soviet aid, though never officially announced, was reported by various sources. In February 1966 the chairman of the Canadian Communist Party, Tim Buck, was quoted by Radio Djakarta as having said that some 5,000 North Vietnamese were being trained in the Soviet Union to become fighter pilots. This information was reported to have been obtained from President Ho Chi Minh while the Canadian Communist was visiting Hanoi in late 1965. The extent of the Soviet aid to Hanoi was estimated in some quarters to be "worth about half a billion rubles", ranging from rocket installations to planes, tanks and warships.In March 1966 Le Duan, First Secretary of the Lao Dong Party, headed a delegation to Moscow to attend the twenty-third Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Communist China had boycotted this Congress. In his speech before the Congress, Le Duan declared that he had two fatherlands, North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, and thanked Moscow for its "huge and many-sided aid."In August 1966 Soviet authorities confirmed that an undisclosed number of North Vietnamese fighter pilots were being trained in the Soviet Union. In addition, Radio Moscow on October 2, 1966, announced for the first time that Soviet officers and specialists had been sent to North Vietnam to train antiaircraft units in the use of Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles. Nhan Dan announced in October that Hanoi had signed in Moscow an agreement on the new Soviet "nonrefundable" aid to Vietnam and an agreement on supplementary Soviet loans to Vietnam for 1967.The USSR obviously had great anxiety over the sea supply route to North Vietnam -- the main channel for Soviet economic and military-support shipments to the DRV. The Soviets were concerned over U.S. bombing of DRV ports and over the possibility that the United States might take steps to close DRV ports by mining or blockade. Through repeated vigorous protests the Soviet Union sought to convey the impression that the USSR regarded access to DRV ports as important to Soviet interests.What the Soviets apparently wanted was a way to carry weapons by sea to the Far East, yet have someone else assume the burden of actual delivery to the DRV. Such a solution would be available if the Chinese were willing to accept Soviet shipments at Chinese ports -- such as Canton -- for transshipment to the DRV either by rail or by Chinese ship.After the 02 June 1967 strafing incident at the DRV port of Campha, a Soviet Foreign Ministry note threatened "to take appropriate measures to insure the safety of Soviet ships" if the incident were reported. On 05 January 1968, after two more incidents had actually occurred, a Soviet protest note said that "the corresponding Soviet departments will be compelled to take measures for insuring the safety of Soviet vessels bound for DRV ports."It is possible that the Soviet navy, in the spring of 1967, was instructed to prepare contingency plans for a possible Soviet attempt to break a hypothetical US blockade of Haiphong - leaving implementation open as a matter for politburo decision. Czechoslovak Defense Minister Lomsky reported to the collegium of the Ministry that the Soviets had issued an order to the Soviet navy to provide escorts for Soviet merchant vessels in the event that Haiphong was blockaded or a Soviet vessel bombed in Haiphong harbor. This order also allegedly called for efforts to break any blockade, including steps to sweep minefields. Lomsky, who had just returned from Moscow, said that the Soviets had told him that they would resist any U.S. moves to prevent Soviet ships from going to Haiphong. The Soviet order was supposedly issued at a time when U.S. statements pointed to a possible blockade of Haiphong. However, no Soviet naval escorts were in fact provided.The Soviet Union indicated that some of the weapons requested by the DRV had been denied. The CPSU document on Soviet military aid to Vietnam circulated among visiting foreign Communists in Moscow in November 1967, stated that "the USSR has speedily satisfied practically all the requests of the DRV for delivery of military equipment." The DRV did not receive the KOMAR or OSA-class guided-missile-firing patrol boats, which it wanted and, apparently, at one time thought it was going to receive. The failure to receive such boats must be particularly annoying to the DRV because, over the previous decade, the USSR had distributed KOMARs and OSAs to about a dozen countries around the world, including some whom the DRV must regard as far less deserving than itself.The military aid figures reflect the level and intensity of combat operations in Indochina. The high level in 1968 resulted both from replacement requirements for ground forces equipment following the 1968 Tet offensive and the delivery of substantial amounts of Soviet air defense equipment before the bombing halt that year. Combat levels were lower during the next two years and military aid declined. This trend was reversed in 1971 when Hanoi began preparations for the 1972 spring offensive. Military assistance jumped sharply again in 1972, reflecting an upsurge in deliveries of ground forces equipment and air defense equipment. Shipments apparently turned down in 1973 following the ceasefire agreement.Economic aid from the USSR exceeded $300 million annually during the l968~7l reconstruction period'and could have been higher if North Vietnam's absorptive capacity were not so limited. Soviet aid fell sharply in 1972, however, as a result of the mining of North Vietnam's ports and the halt in reconstruction activity during the 1972 bombing.Following the conquest of South Vietnam in 1975, Hanoi sought to retain the equilibrium of its wartime relations with both China and the Soviet Union, but mounting tensions with Beijing, culminating in the loss of Chinese aid in 1978, compelled Hanoi to look increasingly to Moscow for economic and military assistance. Beginning in late 1975, a number of significant agreements were signed between the two countries. One coordinated the national economic development plans of the two countries, and another called for the Soviet Union to underwrite Vietnam's first post-reunification Five-Year Plan. The first formal alliance was achieved in June 1978 when Vietnam joined Comecon.Copyright © 2000-2017 http://GlobalSecurity.org All rights reserved. Site maintained by: John PikeWhat role did the Soviet Union play in the Vietnam war? (Quora)Soviet Union in Vietnam WarSoviet Union in Vietnam War: Soviet ships in the South China Sea gave vital early warnings to NLF forces in South Vietnam. The Soviet intelligence ships would pick up American B-52 bombers flying from Okinawa and Guam. Their airspeed and direction would be noted and then relayed to COSVN headquarters. COSVN using airspeed and direction would calculate the bombing target and tell any assets to move "perpendicularly to the attack trajectory." These advance warning gave them time to move out of the way of the bombers and while the bombing runs caused extensive damage, because of the early warnings from 1968–1970 they didn't kill a single military or civilian leader in the headquarter complexes.During the Vietnam War, The Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with medical supplies, arms, tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and other military equipment. Soviet crews fired USSR-made surface-to-air missiles at the B-52 bombers, which were the first raiders shot down over Hanoi. Fewer than a dozen Soviet citizens lost their lives in this conflict. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian officials acknowledged that the Soviet Union had stationed up to 3,000 troops in Vietnam during the war.Some Russian sources give more specific numbers: the hardware donated by the USSR included 2,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery guns, over 5,000 anti-aircraft guns, 158 surface-to-air rocket launchers. Over the course of the war the Soviet money donated to the Vietnamese cause was equal to 2 million dollars a day. From July 1965 to the end of 1974, fighting in Vietnam was attended by some 6,500 officers and generals, as well as more than 4,500 soldiers and sergeants of the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, military schools and academies of the USSR began training Vietnamese soldiers – more than 10 thousand people.The Soviet UnionVietnam Table of ContentsSince the earliest days of the VCP, when the party's primary mentor was the Comintern, the Soviet Union has played a complex role in VCP affairs. Many of Vietnam's leaders had trained in the Soviet Union and had formed personal ties with their Soviet contemporaries. Historically, however, the relationship between the two nations has been characterized by strain, particularly on the Vietnamese side, and the record suggests several instances of Soviet neglect or betrayal of Vietnamese interests. These included Moscow's indifference to the founding of the VCP in 1930; failure to support materially or otherwise the Vietnamese resistance war against the French in the 1930s and early 1940s; failure to recognize North Vietnam until five years after its founding; failure to support Vietnam's application for membership in the UN in 1948 and 1951; support for the partitioning of Vietnam at the Geneva Conference in 1954; and sponsorship of a proposal to admit both North and South Vietnam to the UN in 1956. These examples of Soviet policy reminded the Vietnamese of the peril inherent in placing too much trust in a foreign ally.The Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s favorably altered the Soviet attitude toward Vietnam. Beginning in 1965, the Soviets initiated a program of military assistance to Hanoi that proved invaluable in carrying on the Second Indochina War. Hanoi, however, continued to suspect Soviet motives and perceived that Soviet aid, when offered, was insufficient and given only grudgingly after repeated appeals.Following the conquest of South Vietnam in 1975, Hanoi sought to retain the equilibrium of its wartime relations with both China and the Soviet Union, but mounting tensions with Beijing, culminating in the loss of Chinese aid in 1978, compelled Hanoi to look increasingly to Moscow for economic and military assistance. Beginning in late 1975, a number of significant agreements were signed between the two countries. One coordinated the national economic development plans of the two countries, and another called for the Soviet Union to underwrite Vietnam's first post-reunification Five-Year Plan. The first formal alliance was achieved in June 1978 when Vietnam joined Comecon. That organization, which facilitated the economic integration of the Soviet Union, six East European countries, Cuba, and Mongolia, was able to offer economic assistance for some of the projects abandoned by China.Vietnam's decision to invade Cambodia, which the leadership apparently made shortly after joining Comecon, required more than economic assistance from the Soviets. The possibility of a formal alliance between Hanoi and Moscow had apparently been discussed since 1975, but the Vietnamese had rejected the idea in order to protect their relationship with China. In 1978 that relationship had deteriorated to the point where protecting it was no longer a consideration, and circumstances in Cambodia confirmed the need for Vietnamese-Soviet military cooperation. In spite of Vietnam's needs, it is likely that the November 1978 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was imposed by the Soviets as a condition for military assistance. As a result of the treaty, the Vietnamese granted the Soviets access to the facilities at Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay. Use of the bases represented a substantial regional strategic gain for Moscow, whose naval bases in the Pacific Ocean, until then, had been limited to the Soviet Far East.Soviet support sustained Vietnamese operations in Cambodia. Military aid in 1978 approached US$800 million annually, but after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and the Chinese attack on Vietnam in February 1979, the figure rose to almost US$1.4 billion. The sharp increase, reflecting the Soviet effort to replace quickly Vietnamese equipment losses on the Sino Vietnamese border, was subsequently reduced to between US$800 and 900 million in 1980 and between US$900 million and 1 billion in 1981. Military aid increased to 1.7 billion annually in the 1982- 85 period, and decreased to an estimated US$1.5 billion in 1985. Reported Soviet dissatisfaction with Hanoi's handling of Cambodia, stemming from the stalemated battlefield situation and its high costs, did not appear to affect Moscow's decision to continue to provide assistance for the war. At the end of 1987, there was no indication that the Soviets were pressing Vietnam to resolve the conflict.In addition to its role as Vietnam's exclusive donor of military aid, the Soviet Union in 1987 was also Vietnam's largest contributor of economic aid and its biggest trade partner. During the Third Five-Year Plan (1981-85), the Soviets provided some US$5.4 billion in balance-of-payments aid, project assistance, and oil price subsidies. Total economic aid for 1986 was an estimated US$1.8 billion. The Soviets also have been a major supplier of food and commodity aid on a mostly grant-aid or softcurrency basis. By 1983 they were supplying 90 percent of Vietnam's petroleum, iron and steel, fertilizer, and cotton imports and 70 percent of its grain imports.Soviet-Vietnamese ties in the mid-1980s were sound, although troubled by some underlying strain. The Vietnamese distrusted Soviet intentions and resented Hanoi's dependent role; the Soviets in turn distrusted the Vietnamese for not confiding in them. Reportedly, on a number of occasions Moscow learned of major Vietnamese policy plans and changes only after the fact. According to some foreign observers, the Soviets were not entirely prepared for the sudden deterioration in Sino-Vietnamese relations in 1978, and they may not have been aware of the full extent of Vietnamese plans in Cambodia. Others believe the Soviet Union was aware of the deterioration and was allowing Vietnam to play the role of proxy in Moscow's own dispute with Beijing.Friction was particularly evident in economic relations. The Soviets resented the enormous burden of their aid program to Vietnam and felt that much of it was wasted because of Vietnamese inefficiency. In turn, the Vietnamese were offended by Moscow's 1980 decision to reduce aid in the face of severe economic hardships in Vietnam. In the mid-1980s, aid continued at a reduced rate although Vietnam's economic situation had worsened.The prospect of an improvement in the state of Sino-Soviet relations in the mid-1980s did not appear to threaten the Soviet Union's ties with Vietnam. Although China demanded that Moscow ensure Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia as a condition to normalizing the Sino-Soviet relationship, Vietnamese leaders proceeded as if they were sure their existing policy in Cambodia would not be threatened. The Soviets even went so far as to promote improved relations between Hanoi and Beijing. At Vietnam's Sixth Party Congress in December 1986, the senior member of the Soviet delegation suggested that the normalization of relations between Vietnam and China would improve the situation in Asia and the world as a whole. The Vietnamese agreed with this premise but were unwilling to seek improved ties at the expense of weakening their position in Cambodia.Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam (alphahistory.com)Ho Chi Minh photographed during a visit to the People’s Republic of China.As the United States poured men and money into South Vietnam, Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam also increased. As the world’s largest communist powers, both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China also lent moral, logistic and military support to North Vietnam. Both Moscow and Beijing hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere. Not only would the rise of Asian communism help tip the balance against the West in the Cold War, it would also serve Russian and Chinese national interests. Neither the Soviet Union or China were frank or open about the nature of the support they provided to North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front (NLF). To this day there is much speculation about exactly what was given and by whom. What can safely be assumed is that Soviet and Chinese support was vital to Hanoi and contributed to the successes of its operations in South Vietnam.Western governments, of course, condemned North Vietnam as a puppet state and Ho Chi Minh as a slave to Moscow and Beijing. The extent of Ho Chi Minh’s communism is open to question, however there is no doubt of his strong links with the Soviet Union. The young Nguyen Sinh Cung gravitated towards Marxism in late 1919, after his dreams of Vietnamese independence were rejected by Western leaders in Paris. In 1920 Ho became one of the foundation members of the French Communist Party. Three years later he traveled to Moscow, where he undertook further studies in communist theory and international activism. He also became Vietnam’s delegate to the Comintern, a Soviet committee charged with promoting and supporting socialist revolution around the world. There is no doubt that Ho Chi Minh had the pedigree of a communist – but it is also true that he was no puppet. Unlike some of the pro-Soviet rulers in eastern Europe, Ho’s first allegiance was to his country and its people, not to Moscow, the Comintern or ‘world revolution’.Ho Chi Minh speaks during an official visit to Moscow in 1955After World War II Soviet Russia gave only marginal support for communist movements in Vietnam, which was then well outside Moscow’s sphere of influence. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin sought to maintain his wartime alliance with the West, temporarily at least, and chose not to antagonise them by backing the Viet Minh in 1946-47. Stalin also had an immovable distrust of Asian communist groups, considering them weak, undisciplined and tainted by self interest and nationalism. By the end of 1949 the situation had changed markedly. US-Soviet tensions were rising and Mao Zedong’s communist victory in China (October 1949) was a radical development in the Cold War. In January 1950, Moscow belatedly recognised Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh as the ‘official’ rulers of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh journeyed to Moscow and sought Soviet military backing for his war of independence against the French. But Stalin, whose attentions were concentrated on Europe, rejected his overtures. Stalin instead encouraged his communist ally, Mao Zedong, to support the Viet Minh.Ho Chi Minh with Chinese leaders Mao Zedong (left) and Zhou Enlai, 1955The Chinese already had a history of working with the Viet Minh. Chinese communists and the Viet Minh had provided each other with cover and material support during their struggles to gain control in their countries. This relationship was particularly strong in border regions. Chinese communist forces often retreated into North Vietnam, to rest or prepare for further offensives. In return the Chinese provided the Viet Minh with weapons, munitions and training. Beijing continued this assistance in the early 1950s, providing significant amounts of military aid to Hanoi, while also supplying North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53). Most Chinese supplies arrived in Kunming in Yunnan province, where they were transported to the Vietnamese border, then carried down a narrow jungle track – a forerunner of the famous ‘Ho Chi Minh trail’.Chinese communism also had some influence on Vietnamese communist ideology, organisation and policy. Chinese advice and technical expertise influenced Hanoi’s programs of land reform and industrialisation during the 1950s. When the Indochinese Communist Party was reformed as the Lao Dong in early 1951, it embraced an organisation and structures modelled on those of the Chinese Communist Party. The rhetoric that passed between the Viet Minh and Beijing was usually effusive. Hoang Van Hoan, the Viet Minh’s chief diplomat in China, was reportedly offered unconditional support and a “blank cheque” for the supply of equipment. And while Chinese support was flowing, Ho Chi Minh was prepared to return the gushing praise. At a ceremony in February 1951, Hoang Van Hoan told a visiting Chinese delegation:The death of Joseph Stalin (March 1953) and the stabilisation of events in Europe drew Moscow’s attentions back to south-east Asia. While the Viet Minh were preparing to drive out the French and move toward reunification, the Soviets preferred a more conciliatory approach. Soviet delegates at the Geneva conference urged the Viet Minh to accept a negotiated peace and the proposed transitional division. A divided Vietnam, Soviet strategists argued, would allow for a period of stabilisation: the communist regime in the North would be able to consolidate its power, undertake economic reforms and improve its military capability. Moscow also had broader concerns: it was worried that US military involvement in Vietnam would require some kind of Soviet response. Under pressure from the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh advised his representatives in Geneva to sign the accords.A Chinese poster (1963) calling on resistance to US imperialism in VietnamThe Gulf of Tonkin incident (August 1964) and the arrival of US combat troops (1965) triggered an escalation in Chinese support. This came mainly in the form of equipment and construction. In 1965 Beijing sent several thousand engineering troops into North Vietnam, to assist in building and repairing roads, railways, airstrips and critical defence infrastructure. Between 1965 and 1971 more than 320,000 Chinese troops were deployed in North Vietnam. The peak year was in 1967, when there were around 170,000 Chinese in the communist state. Their work on military installations meant that Chinese troops were susceptible to American bombing runs. An estimated 1,000 Chinese were killed in the North in the late 1960s. Beijing also supplied Hanoi with large amounts of military equipment, including trucks, tanks and artillery.Viet Cong soldiers in front of a Soviet-supplied SA-2 anti-aircraft missileSoviet support for North Vietnam remained lukewarm through the 1950s and early 1960s. The Soviet Union supplied Hanoi with information, technical advisors and moral support – but Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev preferred to limit his backing and keep his country at arm’s length from the unfolding trouble in Vietnam. Khrushchev was removed as leader in October 1964, shortly after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The new Soviet premier, Aleksei Kosygin, was more eager to consolidate and assert his power, mainly to placate hardliners in the Soviet military. In November 1964 Kosygin sent a public message of support to the National Liberation Front and announced a state visit to North Vietnam in the New Year. The Soviet leader arrived in Hanoi in February 1965, when he met with members of the Lao Dong Politburo and NVA commanders. They signed a defence treaty that would provide North Vietnam with both financial aid and military equipment and advisors. A public statement from the Kosygin delegation read:Moscow now became North Vietnam’s main benefactor. Like China, the Soviet Union increased its aid to Hanoi after the US military escalation of 1965. The true extent of this support has never been fully disclosed, though it was certainly substantial. In 1966 there were widespread reports that North Vietnamese fighter pilots, air crews and anti-aircraft gunners had received training in the Soviet Union. It was subsequently revealed that around 3,000 Soviet personnel served in North Vietnam in 1964-65 and that some were responsible for shooting down US planes. By the spring of 1967 TIME Magazine was reporting that a “river of aid” was flowing from Russia into North Vietnam. According to some analysts, by the late 1960s more than three quarters of the military and technical equipment received by North Vietnam was coming from the Soviet Union. And unlike the equipment and weapons supplied by Beijing – which demanded deferred payment – most Soviet assistance was supplied as aid rather than loans.To complicate matters further, the relationship between the Soviet Union and China deteriorated through the 1960s. Changes in leadership in Moscow, coupled with the 1966 Cultural Revolution in China, increased tensions between the two communist superpowers. By 1968 almost one million Soviet troops were massing on the Chinese border. The following year, a series of border clashes led to around 200 deaths. The Sino-Soviet split effectively forced Hanoi to choose between Beijing and Moscow. It was not a difficult decision. In November 1968, the Soviet Union and North Vietnam signed a new set of military and economic agreements. According to one report, they “provided for large Soviet deliveries of food, petroleum, transportation equipment, iron and steel, other metals, fertilisers, arms, munitions and other commodities, for strengthening [North] Vietnam’s defences”. Mao Zedong responded by winding back Chinese aid and ordering the withdrawal of all Chinese personnel from North Vietnam. Russian supplies bound for Hanoi still had to pass through Chinese territory, where they were often held up by suspicious officials.1. As the United States provided aid and support to South Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union did the same for North Vietnam, though the nature and extent of this support is not fully known.2. The period 1946-49 was one of co-operation between Chinese communists and the Viet Minh. This continued after the communist victory in China (1949) in the form of military aid and support with policies and rebuilding.3. The Soviet Union, in contrast, paid little regard to the situation in Vietnam. Stalin urged China to assist with the supply and development of North Vietnam, which it did through the 1950s.4. Seeking to avoid direct involvement in Asia, Moscow urged the North Vietnamese to accept the terms of the Geneva Accords (1954). Soviet interest in Vietnam increased later, under new leader Aleksei Kosygin.5. By the late 1960s Moscow had become North Vietnam’s main benefactor, providing most of its aid and equipment. The Sino-Soviet split in this period forced North Vietnam to align closely with Moscow.© Alpha History 2016. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn, Jim Southey and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:J. Llewellyn et al, “Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam.Why did the Soviets support North Vietnam? (thevietnamwar.info)

ThE INDIAN Armed forces are on a major modernization drive though the process is not as fast as it should have been . The following are some of the recent developments in the direction of the indian armed forces.ArmyThe modernisation process of the Indian armed forces has been explicitly spelt out in the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP), covering the period up to 2027. India has a hostile neighbourhood, the pace of modernisation of Indian armed forces has been slow, and technologically, they are not where they should have been.The Army needs speed, fast tracked, on inducting technologies relevant to modern warfare.Focussing on indigenous development route, the Indian Army has identified certain areas for modernising the Infantry, Digitalising the battlefield, adding Punch to Armour, Artillery and Air Defence as also other High Technology areas. There is movement in the right direction and seminal changes would be visible in the short term and long term. The Make in India route however could take longer but the Government has meanwhile assured full support in helping make up for the earlier delays and stick to new timelines.The Infantry SoldierThe process to acquire and equip him with a modern Rifle, Machine Gun and Carbine is on. One key programme is the F-INSAS (Future Infantry Soldier as a System), to provide a soldier with state-of-the-art weaponry and combat gear. Its first phase is nearing completion with the complete schedule set for 2020. The important systems which the soldier would be equipped with are:-Helmet -The soldier would have a Helmet capable of stopping a 9mm bullet at extremely short ranges. In addition, it would have a mounted flash light, thermal sensors, night vision capability, digital compass, video cameras, computer, and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) sensors as also an audio headset. Its visor will have integrated information with a Head up Display monitor equivalent to two 17-inch computers.Clothing - A soldier’s clothing must be lightweight with a bullet proof jacket. It will also protect him from NBC threats.Weapon – It would be a multi calibre individual weapon system with an Under Barrel Grenade Launcher, a thermal weapon sight and Laser Range Finder.Accessories – They will include palmtop devices with secure communications and integrated with Battle Management Systems.Digital BattlefieldsBroadly there are four important aspects in Digitising the Battlefield, also known in military parlance as Network Centric Warfare (NCW). These are Information Sharing, Improved Situation Awareness, Speed of Command and Enhanced Mission Effectiveness. This is characterised by the aspects of Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition. The Indian Army has been taking baby steps towards the process of digitisation. The entire transformation which was aptly described as systems technology in 1970 to system of systems in 1980 onwards to a family of systems in the 21st century has resulted in a New Generation Network which enables forces to obtain precise target information in real time, leading to quick responsive engagements to effectively destroy designated targets.Indian Army’s Directorate General of Information Systems deals with this important element of Non Contact Warfare. The heart of the system is Command Information Decision Support System (CIDSS) which comprises Tactical Command Control Communications and Information System (Tac C3I). the Artillery Combat Command and Control System (ACCCS), Battlefield Surveillance System (BSS), Air Defence Control & Reporting System (ADC&RS), Electronic Warfare System (EWS) and Electronic Intelligence System (ELINT). The Tac C3 I is to provide state of the art connectivity from the Corps HQ and below. Upward connectivity from Corps HQ to Army HQ is to be provided by the Army Strategic Operational Information Dissemination System (ASTROIDS).However, there is a lacuna as no connectivity exists yet at unit and sub-unit level. Appropriate sensors, platforms, weapon systems integrated with individual soldiers to enable them to exploit their assets and translate plans into synergised operations at the lowest level are needed at the earliest.The BMS as applicable to the Indian Army is a command and control system providing real/near real time situational awareness as also information exchange for unit commanders and below down to individual soldiers/platforms to enable optimal management of resources within the Tactical Battle Area (TBA). The BMS will be mobile and integrated with sensors, weapon platforms and decision making tools. Networked with secure, robust and reliable communication system supporting voice, data and real time video services, it will provide Common Operating Picture (COP) and Situational Awareness to all entities in the TBA.Further the BMS will produce COP by Geographic Information System (GIS) reference framework and provide Blue Force Tracking (BFT) using satellite navigation systems. The aim is to have the shortest OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) loop for the soldiers as also a flexible system architecture facilitating quick attachments and detachments. Further the systems must be capable of quick deployment and have the capability to disseminate position reports in a GPS-disabled environment, relying on alternative Inertial Navigation Systems, possibly India’s own satellites.Notably, Phase 1 of ACCCS has been completed and practically 40 percent of Artillery units are equipped with state-of-the-art networks. There are few observations by the Scientific Analysis Group of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) which once settled will see acceleration in the induction process. Tac C3I and BSS are in the final test bed. EWS, ELINT and ADC&RS are in the process of development.The main Defence Public Sector Unit (DPSU) involved in the effort is Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and the main defence and Research laboratory is Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR). It would take about three years to see induction of these systems.The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) cleared the BMS as a Make (India) project in 2006 under the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) and commissioned an Integrated Project Management Team (IPMT) to do a study. This was followed by an Expression of Interest (EOI) sent to more than a dozen Indian defence companies, both private and state-run. Only domestic companies have been allowed to compete but they will be free to seek foreign technologies.As per the rules, the Government will select two finalists from among the bidders, and give 80 per cent of the development cost to each. The prototypes are to be ready by 2017 and be inducted by 2020.(It may be mentioned here that somehow, none of the few projects being considered under this ‘Make’ category has reached the sanction stage yet, and there is now a review at the MoD on either to amend or replace it).As regards sensors, the Army has acquired Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Battle Field Surveillance Radars, Weapon Locating Radars, Long Range Reconnaissance and Observation System (LORROS), Thermal Imaging Intensification Observation Equipment (TIIOE), N Cross night vision equipment, Hand Held Thermal Imaging (HHTI) equipment, night vision binoculars and Unattended Ground Sensors. Their numbers though need to be improved for better Battlefield Transparency.The Indian Army also needs satellites and aerostats for wider coverage of its Area of Interest or Influence.Adding Punch to Armour, Artillery and Air DefenceBoth the Armoured Corps and Mechanised Infantry need attention, as they have to be deployed in mountainous areas also. Good roads have to be built all along the borders but for economic development of various areas, and the Army will benefit. T 90 tanks and BMP-2s can then be deployed even in Ladakh and the country’s north-east.However, there is a need to procure a light tank for our mechanised forces. DRDO is developing a prototype based on the Sarath chassis but vehicles like BAE Systems Combat Vehicle 90 may be considered to fill in the existing gaps.Currently the most important tank in the Army’s inventory is the T-90 S. This is a third generation Russian tank. By 2020, India would have a total of 2,011 T-90 tanks working out to about 40 Armoured Regiments. There are also six additional regiments being raised for High Altitude conditions. The Indian Army is upgrading about 1600 T-72 tanks with night vision devices and the rest would comprise indigenous Arjun tank which is heavier than the T-90 but has a 120mm gun which fires APFSDS, HEAT, High Explosive (HE) and High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) rounds.Arjun also fires the LAHAT missile, a semi active laser homing weapon with a range of 8 km. The Arjun Mk II is undergoing trials with about 75 modifications.The BMP-2 is the Army’s main APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier), and has excellent mobility. It is equipped with a 30 mm cannon and fires the Konkurs missile – made by Bharat Dynamics Ltd under licence from Russia with a range of 4 Km. Further it has two thermobaric missiles which range up to 6 km. A decision has been taken to upgrade 1600 BMP-2s with a 350 Horse Power (HP) engine. The Indian Army also has 700 BMP-1s in active service.Artillery is the predominant arm as regards Firepower. Undoubtedly the Regiment of Artillery has a variety of weapons which comprises Guns, Rockets and Missiles. The 155 mm Gun needs to be inducted at top speed. OFB’s (Ordnance Factory Board’s) 155 mm (45 calibre) has successfully passed the trials and would see induction possibly by 2016.Trials are on for the Towed and tracked versions of 155 mm. BAE Systems’ 155 mm Ultra Light Howitzer is under discussion with regard to pricing while the Government has cleared the way for initiating the acquisition process for 810 pieces of the 155 mm Mounted Gun System.The Army Air Defence is an extremely important arm as it provides Low Level Air Defence in the Tactical Battle Area (TBA). But overall, the Air Defence equipment is about three decades old and needs to be replaced. It is creditable that two Regiments of indigenous Akash Missiles have been ordered from DRDO. Further trials are on for Very Short Range as also Short Range missiles. The induction of these will take place gradually by 2020.The state of Arms and Ammunition held by the Indian Army presents a grim picture particularly in view of the modernisation being undertaken by our adversaries.Current comparison does give us an edge over Pakistan but we are certainly behind China. The worst strategic threat is a two-front war and we need to modernise expeditiously to dissuade China and deter Pakistan. Both the countries, particularly Pakistan, have become very aggressive on our borders. Views have been expressed of a limited offensive by China in the short term in collusion with Pakistan. Quality of weaponry will decide in such conflicts as they would be limited in time and space. There is a need to expedite procurement of state-of-the-art weaponry to avoid strategic embarrassment and blunder.Other High Technology AreasHigh Technology aspects concern Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Nano Technology, Non Lethal Weapons, Directed Energy Weapons and NBC warfare. Research in all these fields is there at a steady pace. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics are in a nascent stage of development. Rapid strides are needed to be taken in the field of Nano technology as it would lead to reduction of size and weight which would be suitable for our High Altitude and Glaciated regions.Direct energy weapons are being developed by China and India needs to expedite their development. As a peaceful country with NFU (No-First-Use) doctrine for nuclear weapons, India also needs to build credible deterrence.MoD UpdatesThe Capital Acquisition process has received a shot in the arm with the formation of the new Government in May 2014. It has cleared several programmes pending for long, and is encouraging indigenisation to build the domestic defence industry. High priority is also being given to defence procurement.This is a great step as it allows the Indian public and private industry to procure items required by the Services. Further the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can be raised beyond 49 percent after obtaining approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).ConclusionThreats from China and Pakistan leave us with no option but to undertake modernisation at a fast pace. The Indian Army is currently involved in meeting challenges at the Line of Control (LoC) and Line of Actual Control. The Indian Army must prioritise its requirements and apply the Fast Track procedure for critical Arms and ammunition. The Government of India must ensure that timelines are sacred for operational preparednessAir forceThe contract for upgrading MiG-29s was signed in 2008 with RAC MIG of Russia at a cost of US $964 million. This program is to be completed by 2014. The first three upgraded MiG-29s (known as MiG-29UPG) were handed over to India by the Russian company in December 2012. Three more fighters are to be upgraded in Russia and the remaining 63-odd planes are to be upgraded in India with support from the Russian partner. The service life of the upgraded aircraft has been extended to 40 years. Among other features the upgraded MiG include Phazatron Zhuk-M radar, beyond-visual-range combat ability and the mid-air refuelling.The contract for modernising Jaguars to DARIN-III Standard was signed with India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in 2009 at the cost of Rs 31.1 billion. The work is scheduled for completion by 2017. The first upgraded Jaguar was successfully flight tested by the HAL on November 28, 2012. Among other features the upgraded aircraft incorporates new state-of-the-art avionics architecture including Mission Computer (MC), Engine and Flight Instrument System (EFIS), and autopilot. The retrofitted Jaguar will “result in a major operational improvement with regard to all weather air to ground, air to sea and air to air capabilities through incorporation of multi-mode radar”, says R. K. Tyagi, Chairman, HAL.In July 2011, the MoD signed a $2.4 billion contract with French companies Thales, and Dassault Aviation and HAL for upgrades to the IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet procured in eighties. As per the contract, out of 50-odd fighters, two will be upgraded in France, two at HAL with French support, and the rest by the HAL. The entire process is expected to be completed by 2021. The improvements include new avionics, radars, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites, weapon delivery and precision-targeting systems, which will bring the fleet to Mirage 2000-5 standards and extend the service life by 20 years. A separate contract valued €959 million has also been signed with MBDA to provide 450 MICA missiles to arm the upgraded fighters.FighterThe IAF is all set to induct in its fleet over 400 new fighters that include three new types of combat planes - Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), French Rafale and Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) – and an additional 42 SU-30MKIs. The additional SU-30 MKI is part of the $4.5 billion defence deal signed between India and Russia during President Putin’s December 2012 visit to New Delhi. The newly contracted SU-30 MKI will be license produced by the HAL, taking Indian aerospace company’s total order of the fighter to 222, and the total cost of procurement of 272 Su-30MKIs to $12 billion.Beginning with inductions of new type of fighters, the IAF has already placed orders for 40 LCAs (20 each in Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational (FOC) standards) of MK-I version with GE404 engine. These planes are planned for induction in the 12th Plan (2012-2017). There is also a further plan to induct more LCAs of MK-II version with superior GE F414 engines, 99 units of which have been contracted for $800 million. All together, as many as six LCA squadrons (108 fighters) are to be inducted by the end of the 13th Plan (2017-2022).The much touted approximately $20 billion medium multi role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal, in which French Rafale emerged as the winner, looks set for contract finalisation in early part of the next financial year (2013-14). As per the plan, the first Rafale squadron comprising of 18 aircrafts will be inducted in 3-4 years after contract signing. The rest 108 aircraft, which will be manufactured by the HAL under the transfer of technology agreement with France, are to be inducted in the following seven years.The induction of LCA and MMRCA is soon going to be over-shadowed by what is poised as India’s biggest ever defence programme to acquire 200-250 Fifth Generation Fighter Aircrafts (FGFA) – though in a recent interview the Air Chief has however indicated a lower figure of 144 fighters. Consequent to 2007 inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia for joint development of FGFA, both the sides signed a Preliminary Design contract in 2010 at the cost of $295 million to be shared equally. Drawning upon the basic structural and systems design of the Russian PAF-FA, the FGFA for the IAF is now visualised as a single seat fighter with advanced features such as stealth, super-cruise, and ultra-manoeuvrability. HAL, the Indian joint partner in the developmental efforts of the FGFA, has committed $6 billion dollars for the initial developmental efforts. Total programme cost on the Indian side including for the induction is estimated to be $30 billion. The IAF is hopeful of inducting the aircraft from 2020 onwards.Transport AircraftLike the fighter fleet, the transport fleet of the IAF is on a major course transformation, by way of upgrades and replacement of existing fleet, and induction of new planes. Beginning in this regard was made in 2007 when India and Russia signed another intergovernmental agreement for joint development and production of 15-29 ton class Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA). Post the 2007 agreement, both the sides have formed a joint venture in India as an equal partnership. Of the total projected requirement of 205 MTAs, the IAF’s share is 45 (100 for Russia and the rest 60 for exports).The big boost for IAF’s transport fleet however came in January 2008 when India signed the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) with the US government for procurement of six C-130J-30 Super Hercules at the cost of $962.5 million. Intended for use by the Indian Special Forces, the aircraft were all delivered by 2010-11 - ahead of the schedule. Happy with the performance of the new aircraft and the delivery schedule, the IAF is planning to induct six more C-130Js in the near future. Lockheed Martin’s success in bagging the first major IAF order was then replicated by the Boeing when Indian signed another LOA in June 2011 for procurement of 10 C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft at the cost of $4.116 billion. The delivery of the aircraft is scheduled for completion between June 2013 and June 2015. Like in the case of C-130J, IAF also plans to increase its C-17 fleet by 10 more of such planes.The IAF’s AN-32 fleet inducted between 1984 and 1991 is presently going through a major modernisation under a $400 million contract signed with Ukraine in 2009. Of the total 105 AN-32s, 40 are being upgraded in Ukraine and rest will be done India. The upgrades, which will increase the service life by 15 years to upto 40 years, also include noise suspension, collision avoidance and ground proximity warning systems, and satellite navigation - among others.In a major boost to the Indian private sector, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) – the highest decision making body in the MoD – in a July 2012 meeting gave its nod to the IAF’s Rs. 119 billion proposal to procure 56 aircraft (of 6-8 tonne class) as replacement of HAL-built Hawker Siddeley 748M Avro aircraft. The decision was then followed by issuance of RFP in November 2012 to five global manufactures - Russian Ilyushin, Ukrainian Antonov, European EADS, Italian Alenia Aeronautica and Swedish SAAB. As per the RFP terms, the aircraft are to be procured through the 'Buy and Make' route of the MoD’s Defence Procurement Procedure- 2011 (DPP-2011), with the condition that the foreign vendor will select a private Indian company for manufacturing 40 aircraft in India (initial 16 aircrafts to be procured off-the-shelf).The deliveries of aircraft would commence within 24 months from the date of signing the contract and would be completed over a period of eight years. The RFP also stipulates that of the 40 aircraft to be manufacture in India, 16 must have 30 per cent indigenous content which would increase to 60 per cent for the rest 24 aircrafts.TrainerThe IAF’s basic flying training (or Stage-I training) got a shot in arm when the government after some delay and controversy finally signed a contract on May 24, 2012 with Swiss company Pilatus Aircraft Ltd for supply of 75 PC-7 Mk-II turbo prop basic trainer aircrafts (BTA). As per the contract, valued Rs 29 billion, all the aircraft are scheduled for delivery between February 2013 and August 2015. The Pilatus contract may further be swelled with the MoD reportedly ‘rejecting’ on cost ground the state-owned aerospace major HAL’s proposal to supply 106 trainers from 2016 onwards. If the Swiss company succeeds in fishing in HAL’s misery, it may end up meeting IAF’s entire BTA fleet. Presently the IAF does not have a BTA since the entire fleet of HPT-32 (114 aircraft) was grounded after a fatal accident in July 2009.Apart from the BTA, IAF has also set its eye on modernising its fleet of Intermediate jet Trainers (IJT) – for stage-II training - as its current fleet of 81 IJT Kirans inducted in seventies is on the verge of retirement. Although HAL has an order to produce 85 IJTs (including 12 Limited Series Production), the project is running behind the schedule. As against planned delivery from June 2012 onwards, the HAL is still struggling with the flight testing. This has not only displeased the IAF but could lead to procurement from the foreign sources given the criticality of training and the obsolescence of Kirans.Unlike the basic and intermediate trainers, the IAF is however comfortable with its advanced jet trainers. So far IAF has contracted 106 AJT Hawks (as against the requirement of same number) from UK through two separate agreements signed in 2004 and 2010.Force MultipliersAmong other major aerial platforms, the IAF has inducted or in the process of inducting aerial refuelling and airborne surveillance aircraft, in a move to enhance its force multiplier capability. The IAF, which is looking at midair refuelling a mandatory capability in its all on-going and future aerial platform purchases, is hoping that it is second time luck in concluding the $1.0 billion tender for 6 mid-air refuellers, to add to the six IL 78 procured in early 2000s . Pending the government announcement, Airbus has already issued a statement (on January 7th), stating that it has been ‘selected’ as the ‘preferred bidder to supply its A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport to the Indian Air Force (IAF).” Airbus’s win, which comes against Russian IL 78, also means Moscow’s third straight defeat in India’s competitive bidding process. Earlier, Russia lost to the US for two IAF tenders for attack and heavy lift helicopters.India has a total requirement of at least 20 AWACS (airborne warning and control system), and AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft to maintain border and coastline surveillance. So far, the IAF has already inducted three IL-76-based Phalcon AWACS with two more under the pipeline. The first three AWACS, the contract of which was signed in March 2004 under a tripartite $1.1 billion deal among India, Israel and Russia, were the delivered in 2009 and 2010 and 2011, respectively. As a follow-on order to the 2004, agreement, the MoD has in December 2012 given its nod to procure two more AWACS, thus eventually increasing the total AWACS fleet to five. The imported AWACS fleet is soon going to be joined by three indigenous AEW&C systems based on the Brazilian Embraer platform. The first Embaraer aircraft fitted with the DRDO-developed AEW&C reached India in September 2012 for further testing before its induction in IAF.Apart from the major platforms, the IAF modernization also includes induction of other systems, including simulators, air defence system and precision-guided weapons. Presently out of 46 simulators, 30 are operational, with others in the process of being replaced. Regarding radars, the IAF apart from the induction and imminent induction of AWACS and indigenous AW&CS, is in process of fielding a host of radars including Medium Powered Radars (MPR), Low Level Transportable Radars (LLTR), Low Light Weight Radars (LLWR), and Aerostat Systems. To give a further push to the Air Defence sector, a range of missile systems comprising of short range surface to air missile (SAM), medium range SAM and long range SAM are being introduced.Indian NavyBy 2020 the Indian Navy surface combatant fleet will be3 carriers10 destroyers [ 3 Delhi + 3 Kolkata 15A + 4 Project 15B]24 frigates [9 Krivak + 3 Brahmaputra + 3 Shivalik + 7 Project 17A + 2 Project 17B]20 Corvettes [ includes 12 Project 28 and 28A ]There could be as many as 34 submarines in total by 2020, while the Kilo's and 209's will be retired before 20253 ATV SSBN3 ATV SSGN/SSN2 Akula II improved6 U214 / S-80 / Marlin / Amur 1850 (Procurement under discussion)6 Scorpene10 Kilo Improved4 U-209All these steps taken are in the right direction and in congruence to India ‘s ambition of emerging as a super power by 2020. Things are taking place and The government needs to speed up the process and cut the red tape and should focus on the modernization of armed forces on priority basis. Everything else can be achieved if we are secure and safe and it also increases the bargaining power of India as a country.

Original question:What is the goal of Trump's voter fraud task force?The presidential election integrity commission was established by executive order in May to investigate Trump’s claims of rampant voter fraud. As this item starts to occupy more and more headlines - I find it all very confusing, what is the goal and are they going about it the right way?The main goals, based on the past and present behavior and actions of Trump, seem to be:Voter intimidation.Voter suppression & voter restriction.Disenfranchising Voters.To ice his bruised ego (he lost the popular vote).Examples that back up the above goals I listed:Intimidation:Trump asked his base to be “election observers”: [1]Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times……The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, is if in certain sections of the state they cheat, okay? So I hope you people can sort of not just vote on the 8th — go around and look and watch other polling places and make sure that it’s 100 percent fine.Trump’s campaign website also added a “sign up” page for “election observers”:Appeal to motive in the below tweet:Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017Voter Suppression & Restriction: [2]Voter purges:The letter doesn’t ask whether states are complying with the parts of the law that expand opportunities to register. Instead it focuses on the sections related to maintaining the lists. That’s a prelude to voter purging.Usually the Justice Department would ask only a single state for data if it had evidence the state wasn’t complying with Motor-Voter. But a blanket request to every state covered under that law is virtually unprecedented...These parallel efforts show us exactly how the Trump administration will undertake its enormous voter suppression campaign: through voter purges. The voter rolls are the key. Registration is one of the main gateways to political participation. It is the difference between a small base of voters pursuing a narrow agenda and an electorate that looks like America.Will affect minority voters disproportionately:Here’s how the government will use voters’ data. It will create a national database to try to find things like double-voters. But the commission won’t be able to tell two people with the same name and birthday apart. Such errors will hit communities of color the hardest. Census data shows that minorities are overrepresented in 85 of the 100 most common last names.Purging voters is part of a larger malicious pattern that states have employed across the country. Georgia and Ohio are being sued for carrying out early versions of what we can expect from the Trump administration.Disenfranchising Voters: [3]The Voter Commission’s data request resulted in some people withdrawing their voter registration:Three thousand, three hundred and ninety-four Coloradans have withdrawn their voter registrations as of July 13, following the Trump administration’s request for voter data as part of the Commission on Election Integrity. An additional 182 citizens in the state have filed as confidential voters.Several other states have reported a similar uptick in citizens moving to keep their information out of the federal government’s hands.Bruised Ego:Trump cannot accept that he lost the popular vote:In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016Quick look at “voter fraud” claims: [4]The 1960 presidential election:…reports of deceased and other unregistered voters in largely African American districts in Illinois or cases of malfeasance throughout Texas were believed to have rigged John F. Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon.Former Attorney General John Ashcroft:Formed the “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative” under George W. Bush’s presidencyDespite his coordination of the U.S. attorney offices with local election officials, only 24 people were convicted of improper or illegal voting and 14 non-citizens were found to be illegally voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005.Claims of Voter Fraud in New Jersey:There were reports in 2004 that 4,755 deceased voters cast ballots in New Jersey. After careful comparison between voter rolls and death records, there were no official accounts of voter fraud.Claims of voter fraud in New York:In New York in both 2002 and 2004, 2,600 deceased voters allegedly voted, only to be removed from the register after an investigation revealed clerical errors and not malfeasance.Paranoia over “voter fraud” leads to voter suppression.North Carolina:Supreme Court rejected an appeal to reinstate North Carolina’s stringent voter identification laws that were found to discriminate against African Americans “with almost surgical precision.”Within days following this ruling, the court also found that two of North Carolina’s congressional redistricting maps resulted from unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The decision—even supported by the more conservative Justice Clarence Thomas—found that African Americans were unfairly packed in two concentrated black districts, thereby minimizing their political influence in major elections.Wisconsin:Wisconsin’s efforts mirrored those in North Carolina where advocates purported that nearly 300,000 people lacked the proper ID to participate in the 2016 presidential election, even after parts of the state’s law were deemed unconstitutional upon appeal.Florida:In Florida, 1.5 million people were disenfranchised by a law that disqualifies ex-felons from voting, resulting in one in every four African American residents unable to vote in 2016.The 10 members in Trump’s “Commission on Election Integrity”:The above chart is based on information from a Washington Post article. [5]Mike Pence said that the “Commission on Election Integrity” will: [6]…Initiate a full evaluation of voting rolls in the country and the overall integrity of our voting system in the wake of this past election.Closer look into Kris Kobach:On November 9th, 2016, Kobach emailed a Trump transition team member about amending the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA): [7] [8]Kobach wants to amend the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Passed in 1993, the NVRA aims to increase voter registration: Its provisions include requiring that motor vehicle and public assistance agencies provide voter registration opportunities, and allows for registration by mail.“Interstate Crosscheck System”: [9]The “Interstate Crosscheck System” is faulty at stopping voter fraud and is conducted by Kansas election authorities:States participating in the program, known as the Interstate Crosscheck System, send their voter registration files to Kansas…Each participating state receives back a list of their voter registrations that match the first name, last name and date of birth of a voter in another state. Crosscheck provides some guidelines for purging voter registrations from the rolls.The “Interstate Crosscheck Program” is inherently flawed:In theory, the program is supposed to detect possible cases of people voting in multiple locations. But academics and states that use the program have found that its results are overrun with false positives, creating a high risk of disenfranchising legal voters…For every one illegitimate vote, “Interstate Crosscheck Program” would eliminate 200 legitimate votes:A statistical analysis of the program published earlier this year by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and Microsoft, for instance, found that Crosscheck “would eliminate about 200 registrations used to cast legitimate votes for every one registration used to cast a double vote.”Why the “Interstate Crosscheck Program” gets it so wrong:Factors for “matches” - birthdays and names:Crosscheck bases its “matches” primarily on just two factors: people's first and last names and their birth date. But in a country of 139 million voters, you're guaranteed to have tens of thousands of individuals who share both names and birthdays.For instance, in a 2007 paper, elections experts Michael McDonald and Justin Levitt examined voter files from New Jersey's 2014 elections. In those elections, the most common names — William Smith, Maria Rodriguez, etc. — showed up hundreds of times, reflecting their prevalence in the general population.Shared birthdays are even more common — statistically speaking if you have a group of just 23 people, there's a greater than 50 percent chance that at least two of them will share the same birthday.At 180 people, according to McDonald and Levitt, there's a 50 percent chance that two of them will share the same birth date — month, day and year.So if you have 282 William Smiths, as in New Jersey's voter rolls in 2004, you'd expect four of them to share the exact same birthday. Those four William Smiths would be flagged as potentially fraudulent voters by Kobach's Crosscheck system.Disorganized Voter files:…Voter files are notoriously messy and often incomplete. Among the 3.6 million New Jersey voters McDonnell and Levitt analyzed, for instance, nearly 1 million were missing a birth date completely. Ten thousand were listed with a birth date of Jan. 1, 1753, and another 20,000 listed as Jan. 1, 1800 — likely placeholder values that were never updated.Multiply those figures up to the national level, and you can see how a system that naively matches names and birth dates is going to return a lot of noise — and very, very little in the way of people actually trying to game the voting system.There's no question that incomplete voter data is a problem. But comparing incomplete data sets against each other isn't likely to solve that problem.Data on someone registering and voting in two states:Boiling it all down, out of the 240,000 paired registrations that Crosscheck sent to Iowa, there were only six cases where it appeared that the same person registered and voted in two different states.In other words, well over 99 percent of the 'matches' sent to Iowa were unlikely to have anything to do with even attempted voter fraud.Incidentally, that's in line with Kobach's prosecution record on Crosscheck cases: a grand total of nine successful convictions so far, “mostly older Republican males,” according to local media reports.Crosscheck’s “User Guide”:…Crosscheck's user guide recommends purging older voter registrations when the name and partial Social Security number match the name and SSN of a more recent registration.…Harvard, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania and Microsoft team estimate that following this guideline would result in 200 deletions of legitimate voter registrations for each real-world case of double voting it prevented.Kobach loves the “Interstate Crosscheck Program” and wants to take it to a national level - that’s concerning:Kobach's championing of Crosscheck is one reason many voting rights advocates are concerned that President Trump's voter fraud commission may be a vehicle for recommending mass voter purges……In his opening remarks before the election commission he said the Crosscheck program “illustrates how a successful multi-state effort can be in enhancing the integrity of our elections and in keeping our voter rolls accurate. I'm confident that this commission will be equally successful on the national level.”…If the system is primarily a vehicle for false positives, why bother using it at all?…the naming of Kobach to President Trump's voter fraud commission ensures that Crosscheck will continue to have a role in the spotlight this year. And if the Republican Party has its way, Crosscheck will expand — the 2016 GOP party platform called for “every state to join the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program to keep voter rolls accurate and to prevent people from voting in more than one state in the same election.”Kris Kobach sent a letter to all 50 states (June 28th, 2016), requesting information on voters: [10]This letter asked for: [11]The information requested includes the names, addresses, birthdates, political party (if recorded), last four digits of the voter's Social Security Number and which elections the voter has participated in since 2006, for every registered voter in the country.It would seem that Kobach desires to use “Interstate Crosscheck System” on all the information sent in regarding the information he requested.The ACLU said this about the request from Kobach:As a part of Donald Trump’s Election Integrity Commission, Kris Kobach sent letters across the country, asking state representatives for details on every registered voter in the country. This is an unprecedented government request for information on American voters, including names, addresses, birthdates, political affiliation, last four digits of Social Security numbers, and voting history.Here is a chart from the ACLU regarding where each state stands on these requests:After Kobach’s letter, there are currently seven federal lawsuits that have been filed in July (2017) against Trump’s “Commission on Election Integrity”: [12]The NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on July 18th, 2017. The lawsuit alleged that the “Commission on Election Integrity”: [13]“was formed with the intent to discriminate against voters of color in violation of the Constitution…to reaffirm President Trump’s false allegations of millions of ‘illegal’ votesto provide a basis for actions that will target African-American and Latino voters…rather than objectively analyze an issue of national significance.”It went on further, saying:“Statements by President Trump, his spokespersons and surrogates…as well as the work of the Commission as described by its co-chairs, are grounded on the false premise that Black and Latino voters are more likely to perpetrate voter fraud…”The suit points to the below evidence:Trump’s repeated lies that “millions of illegals” voted in the electionPence repeating Trump’s claim/defending it [14]Kobach repeating Trump’s claim: [15]“I think the president-elect is absolutely correct when he says the number of illegal votes cast exceeds the popular vote margin between him and Hillary Clinton at this point.”Hans von Spakovsky’s ties to the “Public Interest Legal Foundation”The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit against the Commission on July 3, 2017, alleging that: [16]“the Commission’s demand for detailed voter histories also violates millions of Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.”The “Commission on Election Integrity” asked states to stop sending voter information until this lawsuit was resolved [17]The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on July 10th, 2017, alleging that the Commission was not following proper transparency laws: [18]The lawsuit charges the commission with failing to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which is designed to ensure public accountability of all advisory committees.The ACLU said that the Commission was not making any of the topics discussed available to the publicThree days later, the White House had a page added to its website which contained some documents regarding the meetings [19]The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit similar to the ACLU’s on July 10th, 2017, citing the Commission’s failure to comply with transparency laws [20]The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law also filed a Hatch Act Complaint against Kobach, saying that he improperly used his role on the Commission to promote his upcoming run for Governor in Kansas [21]The Florida ACLU filed a lawsuit on July 10th, 2017 (separate from the other ACLU lawsuit) against the Commission, alleging that the collection efforts were: [22]“…an unjustified invasion of privacy not authorized under the Constitution and laws of the United States or the individual states.”Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on July 10, 2017, similar to the lawsuit from ACLU Florida, alleging that the Commission: [23]“collection and dissemination of [voter] information violates the Privacy Act, which prohibits the collection, use, maintenance or distribution of any ‘record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.’ ”Public Citizen is requesting a temporary restraining order on the Commission’s request regarding voter informationCommon Cause also filed a lawsuit regarding Privacy Act violations on July 14, 2017, against the Commission: [24]“Common Cause asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to order the commission, [the Department of Homeland Security], and [the Social Security Administration] to stop seeking and using the voter history and party affiliation of voters, and return any such data it has already obtained from any state.”How Kobach’s request could be unconstitutional: [25]Kobach’s goal seems to be collecting personal information on people to put in a national voter file [26]The files would collect information not limited to:NameAddressPolitical party affiliationVoting HistorySome states include even more information: [27]Date of birthTelephone numbersEmail addressesInformation about minors (some states “pre-register” minors so that they can automatically vote when they turn 18)“Publicly Available” is not a cut and dry definition: [28]In some states, voter files are widely accessible, but not to everyoneSome states restrict “why” one can have access to voter filesFor example, Texas prohibits access to voter information used for commercial profitsVoter information is sometimes limited to: [29]Political partiesCandidatesNonprofitsAny state that have these types of restrictions are automatically breaking their own laws by sending information to back to KobachNo one knows what the Commission’s security protocols will be (or if they even have any)Asking for this information via email is suspectMakes it appear that the Commission has no security protocolsAnd/or doesn’t care about securityNo one knows exactly what the Commission will do with the infoWhat laws could this data request be breaking? Here are some of them: [30]The Privacy Act:We’ve long had privacy and security concerns about government recordkeeping in this country. Back in 1974, Congress passed the Privacy Act, regulating how federal government entities keep records. There are a number of substantive requirements for a body like the Kobach commission. Those actually include specific limits on data that Kobach has asked for, like voting history and party affiliation.The Paperwork Reduction Law:The Paperwork Reduction Act, a law with a longstanding pedigree (if an uninspiring name), governs agencies that want to issue potentially burdensome information requests. The statute covers requests that are mandatory or voluntary, aimed at individuals or organizations. The guiding idea behind the PRA is simple: before the federal government enlists individuals, companies, organizations, or state governments into potentially burdensome fact-finding, it should have a good justification and a well thought out plan.Procedural requirements found within the PRA:PRA requires federal agencies to satisfy procedural requirements designed to ensure a deliberative approach informed by the people who will feel the effects of federal action. Much of it is basic stuff. Before sending out an information request to more than ten people, a federal agency must articulate a justification for doing so. It must weigh any potential benefits to the government against the burdens that its requests will impose on recipients. It must have a plan for conducting the request and managing the information it receives. Perhaps most importantly, it must engage the public through two rounds of detailed public notification, coupled with opportunities for the public to weigh in. Only then may the agency seek final approval from the White House’s budget office, which oversees compliance with the PRA, to go forward.The election commission didn’t do any of those things. It simply ignored the statute’s requirements. In other words, its request to every Secretary of State in the country violated federal law.…In other words, the Commission’s failure to adhere to the PRA isn’t a matter of mere technical non-compliance; it flouted a legal framework whose provisions would have offered a safeguard against a misguided, and potentially quite harmful, national fishing expedition for voter data.…For state officials on the fence about whether to provide the data, the PRA should weigh significantly in their decisions. The Kobach letter was, after all, an unlawful request. State officials should pause long and hard before turning over such sensitive data – data that is foundational to the democratic process…And on top of all of that, the letter from Kobach also creates a major target for hackers: [31]Digital security experts say the commission’s request would centralize and lay bare a valuable cache of information that cyber criminals could use for identity theft scams — or that foreign spies could leverage for disinformation schemes.Quick facts on voter fraud:Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School professor, found: [32]2000 - 2014 = 35 cases of voter impersonation out of ~800 million ballots that were cast in primary, municipal, special, and other elections.News21 journalism looked into voter impersonation as well as people voting twice, vote buying, absentee fraud, etc from 2000 - 2012. [33]For voter impersonation: 10For other alleged fraud cases: 2,068~50% of those votes ended with acquittals or charges being droppedThe State Board of Elections in North Carolina found: [34]1 case of voter fraud out of 4.8 million votes in the 2016 General ElectionThere were 500 ineligible votesAlmost all of those 500 were people voting who genuinely thought they couldIn 2007, the NYT found that there were: [35]86 convictions of voter fraud from 2002–2007Quick background on voter ID laws (hint, its voter suppression): [36]Voter ID laws disproportionately affect minorities:These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.States that do have strict voter ID laws tend to vote more conservative:Because minority voters tend to be Democrats, strict voter ID laws tilt the primary electorate dramatically.All else equal, when strict ID laws are instituted, the turnout gap between Republicans and Democrats in primary contests more than doubles from 4.3 points to 9.8 points.Likewise, the turnout gap between conservative and liberal voters more than doubles from 7.7 to 20.4 points.States that pass strict Voter ID laws tend to have GOP legislatures:By instituting strict voter ID laws, states can alter the electorate and shift outcomes toward those on the right:Where these laws are enacted, the influence of Democrats and liberals wanes and the power of Republicans grows.Strict ID laws are passed almost exclusively by Republican legislatures.Quick look at what States have Voter ID laws: [37]Some states seem energized by Trump’s voter fraud conspiracies, many pushing for more Voter ID laws in 2017:At least 99 bills to restrict access to the polls have been introduced (or have been carried over from previous sessions) in 31 states this year; that's already more than double the number last year, according to data compiled by the Brennan Center.Voter ID — requiring voters to prove who they are with identifying documents — is the most common requirement, but changes to the voter registration process, such as asking people to prove their U.S. citizenship, are a close second.Why obtaining a government issued ID tends to be more challenging for minority demographics, collectively as well as some of the reasons that these laws are discriminatory: [38]Cost:Obtaining ID Costs Money.Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.Travel:The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation.In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.Voter ID laws are discriminatory:Minority voters disproportionately lack ID.Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.Some Voter ID laws exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory way:Texas:allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards.North Carolina:Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters.Wisconsin:Until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.Enforcement of Voter ID laws shows a trend of discriminatory behavior:A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.Voter ID laws reduces the turnout of minority voters:Several studies, including a 2014 GAO study, have found that photo ID laws have a particularly depressive effect on turnout among racial minorities and other vulnerable groups, worsening the participation gap between voters of color and whites.The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a right wing group that is funded by corporations like Exxon Mobile and the Koch brothers, is the culprit behind most of the voter ID laws: [39]Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states.Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges.…More than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C.-based, tax-exempt organization.At ALEC’s annual conferences, legislators, nonprofits and corporations work together without direct public input to develop bills that promote smaller government…The group’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force at the 2009 Atlanta meeting approved the “Voter ID Act,” a photo ID bill modeled on Indiana and Georgia laws.…Arkansas state Rep. Dan Greenberg, Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce and Indiana state Rep. Bill Ruppel (three Republicans now out of office) led drafting and discussion of the Voter ID Act.Critics of photo voter ID laws…say voters without a driver’s license or the means (a birth certificate or Social Security card) to obtain free ID cards at a state motor vehicles office could be disenfranchised.They claim that ALEC pushed for photo ID laws because poor Americans without ID are likely to vote against conservative interestsThe White House asked for feedback on the “Election Integrity Commission” on the White House website, which didn’t go so well. For example: [40]There was a lot of swearing:People called out Kobach and Pence specifically:Others questioned the integrity of the Commission:There were comparisons to Big Brother:Others demanded that the commissioners explain themselves:And my personal favorite:So, in conclusion, Trump’s “Commission on Election Integrity” is a waste of taxpayer money. The goal of the Commission is to create a “solution” that is looking for problems that don’t exist as well as creating problems.Are they going about it the right way? No.The premise of this Commission is based on lies.How the Commission is going about collecting the information based on a false premise is wrong.The data the Commission is wanting is likely a violation of privacy laws.Footnotes[1] Trump Asks Supporters to Prevent ‘Rigged’ Election by Becoming ‘Observers’[2] Opinion | The Voter Purges Are Coming[3] Some voters unregistering after Trump administration's data requests[4] Trump’s election integrity commission needs to redress voter suppression, not fraud[5] Analysis | Here are the first 10 members of Trump’s voting commission[6] Trump's election commission meets as critics condemn president's 'biggest lie'[7] Kris Kobach Email [8] This Trump administration official wants to make it more difficult to vote[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/20/this-anti-voter-fraud-program-gets-it-wrong-over-99-of-the-time-the-gop-wants-to-take-it-nationwide/?utm_term=.b08bbbc38661[10] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3881818/SOS-Letter.pdf[11] Election Integrity Commission - State Responses[12] Trump’s voter commission is now facing at least 7 federal lawsuits[13] http://www.naacpldf.org/files/about-us/EIC%20Complaint.pdf[14] Watch Mike Pence try to defend Trump’s false claim that ‘millions’ voted illegally[15] Kris Kobach agrees with Donald Trump that ‘millions’ voted illegally but offers no evidence[16] EPIC v. Presidential Election Commission[17] https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/voter/epic-v-commission/EPIC-v-Commission-government-filing-on-DOD-database.pdf[18] American Civil Liberties Union v. Donald Trump[19] Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity[20] Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Files Lawsuit To Halt Commission Hearing for Failure to Comply With Federal Law | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law[21] Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Files Hatch Act Complaint Against Kris Kobach | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law[22] https://www.aclufl.org/2017/07/10/coalition-of-voting-rights-leaders-and-florida-voters-sue-presidential-commission-over-request-for-voter-information/[23] https://www.citizen.org/media/press-releases/public-citizen-sues-trump-administration-prevent-government’s-collection-voter[24] http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/PenceKobachLawsuit.html?referrer=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/18/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-is-now-facing-at-least-7-federal-lawsuits/?utm_term=.696f889ac706?referrer=http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/18/trumps-voter-commission-facing-several-federal-lawsuits/[25] All Your Voter Data Are Belong To Us | Take Care[26] http://www.ncsl.org/Documents/Elections/The_Canvass_February_2016_66.pdf[27] Full List Facts and Info - Voter List Information[28] States - Voter List Information[29] ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 18. PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING REGISTERED VOTERS[30] President Trump’s Election Commission Has Already Violated Federal Law | Take Care[31] Trump voter-fraud panel’s data request a gold mine for hackers, experts warn[32] Voter Turnout Data - United States Elections Project[33] A News21 2012 National Project[34] https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-Election_Audit_Report.pdf[35] In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud[36] Analysis | Do voter identification laws suppress minority voting? Yes. We did the research.[37] States push new voter requirements, fueled by Trump[38] Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet[39] Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet[40] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/comments-received-june-29-through-july-11-2017.pdf