F-16s to Pakistan—Why Now?

dost-mittar #92: ``I believe that Pakistan has every right to purchase any weapons it wants and can afford, as does India. India spends 2.3% of its GDP on Defense which is not considered excessive by any means. I think even Canada does not spend much less, and we have no enemies at all.``

This is a strange commment. If India and Pakistan should purchase any equipment they want, then obviously other countries will make money off it. What else do you expect the other countries to do? And how can you complain about it then? One cannot have it both ways.

India and Pakistan should not purchase anything they want. It is ridiculous. Comparing them to Canada is even more ridiculous. Canada does not have hundreds of million of people living below the poverty line, like India. Or tens of millions living below the povery line, like Pakistan. How can one simply look at just % of total GDP as a criteria?

You are infact justifying the arms race........

``You are doing exactly what I want Indians and Pakistanis to get away from - in other words seeing India as your enemy and your security in being able to have some sort of balance of arms between the two countries.``

I am not looking at India as the, ``enemy.`` I am merely saying that other countries will sell to South Asia, as long as India remains the biggest importer of arms. The other thing I am looking at are the actual purchases India makes. If you are my neighbor and can already kill me three times, then you go on an buy more arms that specifically target me, then who is at fault?

This is what I cannot understand about varoius comments from our Indian colleagues. There seems to be very little introspection. At some stage, Indians have to look at their ballooing arms purchases, and realize the harm it is doing to peace in South Asia. One cannot have one`s cake and eat it too, i.e. continue to purchase tanks, ships, fighter-bombers etc. than can only be used against Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. (not China) in an offensive manner. And then state that others should not consider India`s desires as aggressive.

The onus lies on India to not purchase offensive weaponry, in the first place.........There is absolutey no reason for it to do so............And this is what is keeping South Asia in an arms race, which is useless.........Why in the world does India want to go from a 3-1 superiority over Pakistan to more than 5-1? And whom else can it use all this equipment against, which cannot be used anywhere else except on the plains of Sind and Punjab?

Is it planning to attack China? And how will it do so with tanks or aircraft carriers, even if it wanted to?

#97 by Romair on April 7, 2005 12:18pm PT

..........Yes!!!.We indians will have a 5-to-1 superiority over `pakistan or what- have- you.We can afford `it`, we have the in-house technology to maintain `it`, and improve upon `it`.We have even started building our own aircraft carrier in-house at either the Mazegaon docks or on the east coast.We have one or two fully operational and we are acquiring a couple from outside too.We will attack anyone who wants to cause us harm , if we want to.As for poverty we are working on it.Our economic growth will address that.All this is none of your business.Really.

Dost-mittar #92: The correct way to look at defense spending is not as a % of GDP. The correct way to look at it is as a % of per capita income, i.e. how much of its money is a country spending on defense, and how much on each person. This should then be related to the threat perception of the country, i.e. Is another country buying weaponry to attack it and how much money is the other country spending? As well as to the offensive weaponry being purchased by the country.........

I can think of very few things that are more harmful than a dirt poor country buying more and more offensive arms to attack other countries.........(attacking other countries being the only purpose of offensive armament)

India has a per capita income around $500 and a military budget around $15 billion. Canada has a per capita income of $30,000 and military budget of around $11 billion............Canada purchases almost no offensive weaponry. India is the biggest importer of offensive arms in the world. Infact the biggest overall importer of any kind of arms.............Even though the only country that can be a threat to India is 1/7th its size, i.e. Pakistan........

South Asia is the second poorest area in the world, after Sub-Saharan Africa. The arms race in South Asia is useless and ridiculous. Anyone flaming it doing a huge deal of harm to the region. Even if South Asia was completely peaceful, with no one threatening the other, there would still be no justification for anyone buying so much armament.........

#97 by Romair on April 7, 2005 12:18pm PT


This is what I cannot understand about varoius comments from our Indian colleagues. There seems to be very little introspection.


Yup...and there`s a lot of introspection in pakis because pakis watch Indian movies....sure...

please tell us why pakis think they were the victors in Kargil....or why pakis think they`re the victims of INdian aggression in 65...65-2005 is a lot of time for the introspecting pakis to introspect the reality out of what they`ve been told...


And then state that others should not consider India`s desires as aggressive.


consider is aggressive, consider it defensive...either way, indians don`t really give a t-shirt with a paki flag for what pakis think...


The onus lies on India to not purchase offensive weaponry, in the first place.........There is absolutey no reason for it to do so


As long as the majority of a billion Indians think it`s justified, it`s justified...Indians don`t go by what pakis think....you should know that by what Indians think of Indian Kashmir...

rsridhar #88 I was merely pointing to what is obviously going in terms of military alliances and so on. If you read the last para. of my post, you will see I dont think these developments favor the citizens of any country - not India, not Pakistan, not China, not the US, not anywhere.

At best this is a necessary evil (i.e. in case of the US which must strengthen its military alliances with Pakistan and India in order to meet the emerging Chinese threat), and at worst it is a vainglorious attempt by an undemocratic regime to project military power (i.e. in case of China, whose fantastic growth has been despite the communist regime in place and not because of it - and because of the innate enterprise of the chinese people and the enormous capital that became available to the Chinese expatriate community by the mid-1970`s). Pakistan and India are in my view somewhere in the middle - engaging in military expenditures in part due to vainglorious attemps at building up military strength and in part as a necessary evil (to counter perceived threats).

Anyway, while I am aware of the common Indian need (that you also demonstrate) to portray pakistan as a mere pawn for one power or the other, this view flies of all reality. Pakistani leaders (despite their many faults) have proved to be far more pragmatic and imaginative than those in India in building strong relationships with other nations like the US and China while at the same time following their own path to nuclearization and exploiting Pakistan`s strategic location. And that is why Indian military ambitions - despite all the big talk - end where the wagah border begins.

Romair:

I think that you and I are thinking along different trajectories. Your thinking is stuck in the India-Pak strait-jacket, and you are creating all kinds of criteria why India should also think of itself as a rival of Pakistan only. I want the two countries to think of the longer term as subcontinentalists rather than rivals; as shatranj ke khiladi rather than shatranj ke mohray in the international chess game.

Yes, I want India to be strong and be able to play its part in the world. Its spending on defense should be governed by where it wants to be 20 years from now and how much it can afford rather than simply looking at how much it needs against Pakistan. And you are right, Indians have a strong consensus on that, extending to all sections of the society, with the exception, maybe, of the communist parties.

``Is it planning to attack China?``
This is like asking ``Is Pakistan planning to attack India?``. India does see China as a rival. China is way ahead of India in every department, but why should she accept it as a permanent situation? India is as rich in natural and human resources as China; the only thing it lacks is good governance. Personally, I would be far happier if India can wean Pakistan away from China. This is of course, dreaming, but that is what strategic thinking should be all about.

As far poverty and defense, I agree that India needs to spend more money to fight poverty, and I think that Pakistan needs to do even more. But there is enough wasteful expenditure in other public sector, which can be cut without affecting defense.

Dost-mittar #102: ``I think that you and I are thinking along different trajectories. Your thinking is stuck in the India-Pak strait-jacket, and you are creating all kinds of criteria why India should also think of itself as a rival of Pakistan only. I want the two countries to think of the longer term as subcontinentalists rather than rivals; as shatranj ke khiladi rather than shatranj ke mohray in the international chess game.``

Yes, we are thinking along different lines: you are thinking along incorrect ones and I am thinking along correct ones........My thinking is not stuck in an India-Pak strait-jacket. My thinking states that there is no need for any kind of jacket. You seem hell-bent upon getting out of one jacket and into another one.

The worst thing India can do to a South Asian peace process (which has to happen before we can all become chess players) is to arm itself furthur. You are jumping the gun, if you think this should be the first step. First lets get peace in the area. Then lets get the economic union in place. After that, India can be the elder brother and arm itself to the teeth, if it wants, and no one would be bothered (though I would prefer it, even then, if India armed itself with weapons that can be used against Australia and not only against Pakistan).

By arming itself now, it is furthur ruining chances of peace. Achieve peace first, then arm (jointly, like NATO). Not arm first and then keep hoping for peace. What`s the hurry? Can`t India wait another ten years. Is there some country it just has to attack?

And why in the world is there a need for India to buy offensive weaponry? When it has hundreds of millions of people who can barely eat and go to school. Who is it going to fight with? Can`t it just cool it for a while and let everyone solve their poverty problems? What need is there to play chess, when one cannot even buy a glass of milk to feed ones kids? Chess playing should come after everyone is fed......

Neighboring countries can only think in longer terms, if the largest country in the area is not perceived as a threat by its neighbors. And the onus of that is on the largest country. Not on the smaller ones. If today, USA lined up 1000 tanks in Michigan and North Dakota, rest assured Canadians would be concerned.

The first step in this regard would be stop buying cannons and tanks that can only be used against Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. I find it strange that you cannot comprehend this simple point. What do you expect Pakistan to do if India buys 500 tanks, which are designed to roam across the Punjab plains? Who else in the world is India going to use them against? China in the mountains? Japan? USA?

Can`t you, at least, accept the fact that India should stop buying Pakistan-specific or any South Asian neighbor-specific offensive weaponry? Specifically when it already has so much of it already............

If India wants to be a leader, it needs to be the elder brother, not the big brother. If it cannot even get South Asian countries to accept it as a leader, then how in the world will it lead anything else. Leadership is earned, not given. Nor can it be achieved through threats. Currently India has serious border issues with Pakistan. It has border skirmishes with Bangladesh. Its PM was assisinated by a Tamil Sri Lankan. It has issues with the govt. of Nepal. On top of that it is purchasing more and more arms!!

This is why, no country in South Asia is willing to accept it as a leader, even though it is three times larger than all of them combined and should be the natural leader............

Let me give you an example: Forget about Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan had three divisions in its Army. Now Bangladesh has 7 divisions in its Army. Why is its Army mroe than double the size that even Pakistan had in East Pakistan, if it feels no threats?

Romair #103

`` The worst thing India can do to a South Asian peace process (which has to happen before we can all become chess players) is to arm itself furthur. You are jumping the gun, if you think this should be the first step. First lets get peace in the area. Then lets get the economic union in place. After that, India can be the elder brother and arm itself to the teeth, if it wants, and no one would be bothered (though I would prefer it, even then, if India armed itself with weapons that can be used against Australia and not only against Pakistan). ``

Indian government will build its forces to counter external threats. Unless Pakistan plans to attack India or pull a Kargil please explain why Pakistan would be concerned with the acquisition of Phalcons, Su-30 MkI etc. Pakistan is supposed to have a nuclear deterrent.

`` By arming itself now, it is furthur ruining chances of peace. Achieve peace first, then arm (jointly, like NATO). Not arm first and then keep hoping for peace. What`s the hurry? Can`t India wait another ten years. Is there some country it just has to attack?

And why in the world is there a need for India to buy offensive weaponry? When it has hundreds of millions of people who can barely eat and go to school. Who is it going to fight with? Can`t it just cool it for a while and let everyone solve their poverty problems? What need is there to play chess, when one cannot even buy a glass of milk to feed ones kids? Chess playing should come after everyone is fed...... ``

Indian military spending is 17% of budget. For Pakistan it exceeds 50%.
Indian spending as part of GNP is under 2.5%.

Tell us why does Pakistani army need 500,00 troops if they plan to use nukes to deter Indian aggression.

`` The first step in this regard would be stop buying cannons and tanks that can only be used against Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. I find it strange that you cannot comprehend this simple point. What do you expect Pakistan to do if India buys 500 tanks, which are designed to roam across the Punjab plains? Who else in the world is India going to use them against? China in the mountains? Japan? USA? ``

Obviously Indian military is built to fight realistic opponents. Why would India prepare to fight North Korea or Sudan when they are far away.

`` Can`t you, at least, accept the fact that India should stop buying Pakistan-specific or any South Asian neighbor-specific offensive weaponry? Specifically when it already has so much of it already............ ``

What is an offensive weapon ?

`` If India wants to be a leader, it needs to be the elder brother, not the big brother. If it cannot even get South Asian countries to accept it as a leader, then how in the world will it lead anything else. Leadership is earned, not given. Nor can it be achieved through threats. Currently India has serious border issues with Pakistan. It has border skirmishes with Bangladesh. Its PM was assisinated by a Tamil Sri Lankan. It has issues with the govt. of Nepal. On top of that it is purchasing more and more arms!! ``

Tell me if you wanted to be treated like Indian Muslims treated the way Sinhalese treated Sri Lankan Tamils. Tell me if you want to live under a monarchy.

`` This is why, no country in South Asia is willing to accept it as a leader, even though it is three times larger than all of them combined and should be the natural leader............ ``

Nobody gives a damn what Nepali kings, Sri Lankan/Bangaldeshi elite, Burmese junta thinks about India. All of them have serious flaws and have serious internal issues of their own creation.

`` Let me give you an example: Forget about Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan had three divisions in its Army. Now Bangladesh has 7 divisions in its Army. Why is its Army mroe than double the size that even Pakistan had in East Pakistan, if it feels no threats? ``

Let me give you one more example:

Pakistan and Bangladesh have the same population. Yet Pakistan has a military 3-4 times the size of Bangladesh.

If you had seven divisions in 1971 maybe Pakistan could have defended East Pakistan. It looks like somebody was stealing Bangladeshi resources for their benefits.

For the record I prefer money to be spent on infrastructure than military weapons. It is hypocritical of Romair to be making arguments when the likes of him in Pakistan are looking for any opportunity to make weapon purchases from anyone.

Romair #97

`` India and Pakistan should not purchase anything they want. It is ridiculous. Comparing them to Canada is even more ridiculous. Canada does not have hundreds of million of people living below the poverty line, like India. Or tens of millions living below the povery line, like Pakistan. How can one simply look at just % of total GDP as a criteria?

You are infact justifying the arms race........``

You had a Prime Minister who said that he will eat grass but won`t give up his pursuit of nukes. Why is so hard to eat grass now ???


`` I am not looking at India as the, ``enemy.`` I am merely saying that other countries will sell to South Asia, as long as India remains the biggest importer of arms. The other thing I am looking at are the actual purchases India makes. If you are my neighbor and can already kill me three times, then you go on an buy more arms that specifically target me, then who is at fault? ``

Why is so concern about Indian arm purchases if you have nukes.

`` This is what I cannot understand about varoius comments from our Indian colleagues. There seems to be very little introspection. At some stage, Indians have to look at their ballooing arms purchases, and realize the harm it is doing to peace in South Asia. One cannot have one`s cake and eat it too, i.e. continue to purchase tanks, ships, fighter-bombers etc. than can only be used against Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. (not China) in an offensive manner. And then state that others should not consider India`s desires as aggressive. ``

You would have to explain why Indian weapon purchases hurt South Asian peace process or peace per se.

`` The onus lies on India to not purchase offensive weaponry, in the first place.........There is absolutey no reason for it to do so............And this is what is keeping South Asia in an arms race, which is useless.........Why in the world does India want to go from a 3-1 superiority over Pakistan to more than 5-1? And whom else can it use all this equipment against, which cannot be used anywhere else except on the plains of Sind and Punjab? ``

What is your problem with India acquiring Patriot missiles, F-18/F-16, Phalcons, Su-30 MkI etc. ? Does it stop a Pakistani nuclear missile attack ? It ensures for some devastating retaliation.

`` Is it planning to attack China? And how will it do so with tanks or aircraft carriers, even if it wanted to? ``

It can stop a Chinese attack.

#105 by bbabu on April 7, 2005 3:22pm PT


Why is so hard to eat grass now ???


Paki soldiers in kargil tried that when their supply lines were cut off and mushy abandoned them....turns out, grass doesn`t taste good...and it doesn`t fill you up...

sup with dat?

I thought pakiland could make sophisticated things(like OR gates etc)....

(Paki )Govt may nod to car engine imports from India

* Pak-Suzuki may venture with Maruti

By Fida Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The government is considering to allow Pak Suzuki Motor Company to import engines from India for Suzuki cars, assembled in Pakistan as the Japan has almost halt rolling out low power engines, official sources told Daily Times.

The Maruti Motor Company, India’s Suzuki Motor franchise, has established it engines manufacturing plant at Chandigarh, the capital of the northern states of Punjab and Haryana. Spread out over 114 sq. km. Chandigarh is home to big industrial undertakings as well as more than 2,500 small-scale industrial units.

The official said that the government is considering allowing the import of engines from Chandigarh, as it would cost much lesser than the amount being paid on import of the same from other options.

Pak-Suzuki may be allowed to import engines of 800 cc and 1000 cc cars from India in 2005-06 in line with the government efforts to reduce the car prices in local market, the official said.

Chandigarh is in the close proximity with Pakistan and the concerned authorities are assessing the import cost of engines for Suzuki cars in Pakistan.

#101 by tahmed32

At best this is a necessary evil (i.e. in case of the US which must strengthen its military alliances with Pakistan and India in order to meet the emerging Chinese threat), and at worst it is a vainglorious attempt by an undemocratic regime to project military power

America has learnt its lessons from the 1990s when US naively imposed nuclear sanctions on Pakistan. This monumental blunder cost America considerable leverage with Pakistan. And for what benefit? Pakistan still continued its nuclear program relentlessly. And this nuclear program was India-specific, not meant to be used against US or Israel. The F-16s sale [and the US silence over A.Q.Khan scandal] are just indications that US wants to develop a long-term relationship with Pakistan.

However, I disagree with your comments about Pakistani perspective. I don`t believe this sale is a ``vainglorious attempt by an undemocratic regime to project military power``. Pakistan already has enough Ghauri and Hatf missiles to project military power. The F-16s are just an alternate delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons and denying India air superiority in a future limited war.

Pakistan`s economic situation is now qualitatively better than 1999. We can now afford these fighter jets `without eating grass`, affecting the various economic development programmes in progress or giving up the JF-17 project. These jets are a long-term investment.

Re: # 106
when you give your boyfriend harish hyd oral pleasure, do you talk out of your ass this much as well? man, thats gotta be quite an art! here`s some pics for your indian quality. veggie samosa shri arjun??

http://www.netgate.nildram.co.uk/IndianArmyAPC2.jpg
http://www.netgate.nildram.co.uk/IndianArmyAPC1.jpg

and my favorite.....http://www.netgate.nildram.co.uk/hindu.jpg

#82
would you like to bring concrete proof of the talking out of your ass you just did? or would you like to prove that bhindians have chronic inferiority complexes when it comes to pakistan? hehehe...certainly, some of you bhindus are pathetic!

Romair#103:

People more qualified than me have entered into the type of discussion you want to have. But I do agree with one of your statements:
``If India wants to be a leader, it needs to be the elder brother, not the big brother.``
I believe the former Indian PM Gujral tried to be exactly that. However, for that to happen, Pakistan too has to change its mindset. It would have to accept itself in the same role that Canada does in North America. At one time, Canada too had unfriendly relations with the US. Now, any Canadian politician, let alone military leader, who thinks of developing a credible deterrent against the US would be sent to a mental asylum. No Canadian leader would think of stating every second day that peace with the US is not possible unless the core issues are resolved. No Canadian leader would hide US`s worst mafia leaders, let them give interviews to media and then deny their presence. The only permanent security for Pakistan lies in its accepting a Canada-type status and, yes, for that to happen, India should adopt the so-called Gujral doctrine.

You could validly argue that India is not as strong vis-a-vis Pakistan as the US is vis-a-vis Canada. If so, that would be an argument for India to aquire arms at an even greater speed than it is doing now.

eat your words.....
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/SSC/CSER/UOSAT/press/Surrey.html
Located in new purpose-built premises, the Surrey Space Centre, with 130 staff and postgraduate research students, houses state-of-the-art satellite research and construction facilities. The facility’s Mission Operations Centre contains a fully automated satellite tracking and data collection system, currently responsible for nine microsatellites in low-Earth orbit.

Training foreign engineers through its Technology Transfer Programme, the Centre will continue to build on its successes with Korea, Portugal, Pakistan, Chile, South Africa, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Through a unique combination of academic and commercial activity, Surrey provide intensive and in depth programmes at relatively low cost and risk, enabling emerging countries to take their first steps into space.

more to feast your eyes....hahahaaaaaa

Indian army confesses to over-estimating N-prowess

By Jawed Naqvi


NEW DELHI, Feb 22: The Indian army had falsely believed that its new found nuclear prowess would guarantee perpetual peace with Pakistan, the army`s newly released secret assessment of the Kargil fiasco says, according to excerpts published in the Outlook magazine on Monday.

In its cover story headlined ``War Against Error,`` the magazine says that the Indian army ``was shocked and awed by the Kargil war.`` Five years later, the army`s internal report lists the blunders it made, and steps to avert them in the future.

``The battle fought on the icy heights of Kargil between May and July 1999 is one that will not be easily forgotten by India,`` the magazine says. ``Five years after a war in which 474 officers and men lost their lives, there has been much introspection in the country`s security establishment on what went right, and what went wrong, in Operation Vijay.``

The peace process, kicked off by the Lahore bus ride of Prime Minister Vajpayee, and the fact that both India and Pakistan had gone ``overtly nuclear`` led the army top brass to believe that war was a distant possibility,`` the army assessment admits.

The assessment also recognises another factor ``that caused much heartburn within the army`s higher echelons`` - the fact that there were no inputs from the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) spy agency.

The decision to take a dispassionate look at the war and to record its history and disseminate it among top generals of the army was taken two years ago when General N.C. Vij took over as the army chief. He had witnessed the conduct of the war at close quarters as the Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO).

Gen Vij decided to put together an internal assessment documenting crucial lessons from that war, culled mostly from top-secret operational notes with the military operations directorate. Such an assessment, it was felt, would help the army`s senior commanders to learn ``valuable lessons of the art of war`` --a war that was fought in recent times and won, albeit after paying a heavy price.

The self-assessment made the army take a hard look at the many blunders that were committed during the Kargil operations - the critical failures, which happened at various levels.

wait, wait.....my favorite part...........hahahahaa


``Senior commanders failed to deliver, the intelligence setup proved ineffective, battalions were led by people too old to climb razor-edge peaks in sub-zero climes (HAHAHAHAHAA), rifles that were introduced midway through the war created problems and the delay in deploying air power during the conflict prolonged the war,`` the report says.

# 109

Not only are you pathetically ignorant, but it also appears that you are new to chowk. Check this archives...search for ``Satellite`` and read the article called ``ONLY 5 Million``

I urge you to wear some padding next time. Kicking your ass is too easy...