Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

Apart from creating unnecessary tension with India, this is purely wastage of funds. These billions should be directed to creation of Jobs, education, health and other social services in Pakistan. I don’t know when Allah would give brain to Punjabis (Rulers) to think in right direction. Pakistan does not need F-16.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_pakistan

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has notified Congress it has approved the sale of 18 new F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan as part of a $5 billion weapons deal.
The package, which includes an option to purchase another 18 F-16 fighter jets, an offer to modernize 26 used aircraft already in Pakistan’s arsenal, as well as logistical and other support was quietly sent to Congress on Wednesday.
It coincides with an administration drive in Congress for endorsement of nuclear cooperation with India, a historic rival of Pakistan. But a State Department spokeswoman, Julie Reside, said the two actions are unrelated.
“We believe in treating each country individually,” Reside said. “Each faces defense issues different from the other.”
Pakistan has strained for years to purchase new F-16 jets. Its support for the United States in countering terrorism apparently bolstered its case.
“The sale is part of an effort to broaden our strategic partnership with Pakistan and advance our national security and foreign policy interests in South Asia,” Reside said. "Pakistan is a long-term partner and major non-

NATO ally."
Congress has 30 days to reject the sale. State Department officials have been conferring privately with members of Congress, apparently finding them receptive to the weapons deal.
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, have fought three wars over the future of the

Kashmir territory. They have competed over the years for military advantage.
Reside, dismissing any suggestion the U.S. sale would contribute to an arms race, said a dialogue between the two countries had helped reduce tensions and provided greater stability in the area.

2

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

In an ideal world you would have been right. Have you seen the budget difference of Pakistan VS India military? 13.x Billion VS 2.7 billion (source:CNN)

World politics is a complicated and dirty stage. I do agree that Pak probably don't need the F16s since they are almost producing their own planes

3

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

^just FYI....those are very outdated numbers. the Indian military budget is now $21 billion, and Pakistan's is now $4 billion.

of course, your point about the difference still stands.

4

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

The defence budget accounts for less then 3% of GDP. According to Shaukat Aziz, the GoP decreased the defence budget with respect to GDP, as compared to the last Fiscal Year. The attention is ALWAYS more towards society then military.

As for the billions you speak of for acquiring F-16's... they are to be covered by the military aid provided by U.S.

And, then you say Pakistan doesn't need F-16's. Care to explain how you expect PAF to monitor and protect thousands of kilometres of aerial borders and national airspace?

You really need to know a thing or two about military before making comments like these.

By the way, these are not Punjabi rulers. They are Pakistani. Nice try to divide up Pakistan. Your a disgrace!

5

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

And, the figures provided by your news source are wrong. The deal is worth around $3b - 3.5b , not $5b.

6

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

Pakistan cuts number of F-16s to be purchased

WASHINGTON, June 29: Pakistan intends to buy 36 F-16 fighter jets from the US and not 75 as originally planned, diplomatic sources told Dawn. The decision has been conveyed to the US government which officially notified the Congress on Wednesday of its intention to sell F-16s to Pakistan.

Once the notification is issued, the Congress has 30 days to reject the offer but if it fails to do so, the deal will be considered endorsed.

Last year, the US announced a shift in its arms sale policy to South Asia by unveiling plans to sell F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. The US Congress cancelled a sale of about two dozen F-16s to Pakistan in 1990 because of differences over Islamabad’s nuclear programme.

Pakistan has been frustrated for years in its desire to buy new F-16s for its air force, which already has 32 aircraft of older models.

Washington began to reconsider Islamabad’s request for the fighter jets after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attack when Pakistan became a key ally in the US-led war against terrorism.

Last year, US officials announced that they were willing to sell as many of the aircraft as Pakistan wanted.

Initial reports suggested that Pakistan might buy as many as 100 fighter jets but later reports reduced the numbers to as few as 25.

Before last year’s earthquake, Pakistan had planned to buy a mixed package of 75 old and new aircraft but the numbers were reconsidered after the earthquake. Now Pakistan intends to buy 18 new and 18 old aircraft, diplomatic sources said.

A US State Department official said a support package of up to 36 used and new F16s and an upgrade package for Pakistan’s current fleet of 34 aircraft would cost approximately $5 billion. This includes ammunition and logistic support.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/30/top10.htm

Pakistan's exports grow by 31.47%
Pakistan's exports grow by 31.47%
Pakistan's exports grow by 31.47%
7

Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901599.html

Let’s see if the Congress will approve this. If it remains quiet, I think it might.

Freedom In Pakistan
8

Bush backs F-16 sale to Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5131566.stm

9

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

I doubt the deal is $5bn, Pak's defence budget is some $4.2bn dollars in total.

Ideally funds would not have to be wasted on arms, but the reality is that Pakistan is in a very dodgy neighbourhood where all residents are well armed and improving further. We have to keep pace.

MOHABBAT HO TU AISI HO....
10

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal

I really wish we don’t get those trash F-16s :bummer:

11

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

I really wish we don’t buy these F-16s :bummer: rather spend this money educationg people and help them establish businesses.

12

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

The F-16's are needed desperately. This package is not just 18 new jets, but an upgrading of our current 25 odd planes. Given that the F-16 is the backbone of our ariel delivery system for Pakistan's nuclear deterence, having them in working order is vital.

In an ideal world we wouldnt have too, but you must live in reality. Its falacy to have only one reliable delivery platform for your nuclear deterent, no jets would leave us with only IRBM's as a viable platform. It would be strategic suicide.

13

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal

These are upgraded models Pakistan will be receiving, far from trash.

14

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

^ we could spend only 1/4 of this money on R&D to develop the parts we need, I am sure our talent-pool is not dried yet.

15

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

We also badly need a SLMB capability, to ensure terretorial integrity and deter any aggressors. After that point, we could start to think abt scaling back conventional spending.

16

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

History shows that countries that scale back their forces during times of peace are ALWAYS caught with their pants down when things turn hostile.

Look at Britain. from having the World's second largest navy in 1945, decades of spending cuts due to peace made Britain so weak by 1982 that when war came from nowhere, her political leadership was sure she did not have the capacity to fight even a third-rate power like Argentina. Only the insistence of the head of the navy meant that britain tried to fight. And the planned cutbacks would ahve meant that 2 years later Britain would have had no means to take back the Falklands.

Britain suffered the exact same thing from 1918 to 1939.

Just because Pakistan is experiencing peace right now, does not meant hat pakistan should expect of plan to permanently have peace. If a war suddenly comes with just 6 months warning, Pakistan will not have enough time to acquire arms and train soldiers and support staff how to use them.

Therefore, Pakistan must constantly spend as if a war is coming within the next year. Because you never have more than a year's warning of war.

Countries throughtout history that have expected peace because of the political climate get caught napping when that climate changes.

17

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

Aside from the astronomically immense costs of R&D (it’s not just the parts you need that you have to research, it’s the means to make them too) The parts we need are copyrighted and protected by patents.

Pakistan’s treaty obligations require it to uphold intellectual property claims.

18

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

Mad, I am about as Realist a thinker as they come, the point being that a triad of delivery platforms should provide enough deterence for Pakistan. The whole defense strategy is based on the idea that India will not opt for war as it may grow to include a nuclear dimension.

19

Re: Bush Quietly Pushes Through Pakistan F-16 Deal (merged)

Using nuclear deterrence died at the Falkland Islands.

Britain had the means to plant a thermonuclear warhead within 25 metres of any spot on the planet and yet it didn’t stop Argentinia from invading Britain.

Why? Because any country facing a nuclear opponent gamble on proportionate response.

There are two problems with thinking that a nuclear deterrent will work against conventional attack.

  1. Internation consequences if its clear that a country is not in mortal danger but uses nukes anyway. Pakistan made it clear that in 2002 that it would use its nukes because certain elements within India were talking of ending Pakistan. Pakistan’s existence was at stake.

What if India announces that it’s attacking Pakistan to take Muzzafarabad and that’s it. Or attacks in kashmir and declares to the international community that it has no intention of spreading the fight further and has no desire to annex Pakistan or invade elsewhere? Given Pakistan’s acceptance that kashmir is internationally disputed territory, the international community would take a very dim view of Pakistan using nukes because of an attack on land that even pakistan acknowledges is not part of Pakistan (yet).

  1. Using nukes to fight off an invader is stupid, because YOU WILL BE NUKING YOUR OWN SOIL to wipe the invaders off of it.
20

Re: U.S. sells F-16s to Pakistan

And, how do you expect PAF to serve its purpose until those parts are developed?