lols
“This is what happens in countries that are dependent on foreign technology,” says Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan’s Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99. Much of Pakistan’s military modernization has come about from U.S. arms sales in the 1950s and '80s. “In Pakistan, we have not really gone beyond license production and reverse engineering.” Siddiqa adds that this is not the first time that Pakistan has been accused of reverse engineering or modification. A U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile that had strayed into Pakistani territory during strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 and was recovered intact by Pakistan is widely believed to have provided the basis for its Babur cruise missile
Pakistan spends “a very small amount of defense production on research and development,” says Siddiqa. The Ghauri missile — Pakistan’s much-vaunted medium-range ballistic missile, capable of traveling up to 1,500 km and carrying a payload of 700 kg — is simply a renamed Nodong-1 missile imported from North Korea. Drawing on the technology of the North Korean imports, Pakistan is continuing to develop its own longer-range variants — all pointed at India
**
Behind the U.S.-Pakistan Missile Spat: The Indian Threat - TIME
..... all pointed at India
....
So should we point these missiles at "mogadeshu"?
Man some of these writers like Siddiqa are simply nutz and quoting them in a serious discussion is ever nutzer.
USA should know by now.......in Pakistan people "adultrate" every thing, then why should we keep the missiles in their pure form...........:D
kissee hoar da teer chala kay kee maza
teer tay apna thuppa la kay chalaan which maza hoar hay..:)
simple!
Defensive weapon - you use the weapon to blast someone violating your territory. Offensive weapon - you use the weapon to blast someone in his/her territory.
Thus defensive/offensive definition is based on where you destroy things using this weapon (and not the blasting action).
So you think the Harpoon is not useful for sinking enemy ships in their own territory during a war? If Pakistan and India were at war, and a Pakistani destroyer in international waters outside Indian territory detected an Indian warship maneuvering inside Indian waters, would it be defensive or offensive to make the first strike and send a Harpoon hurtling towards the Indian ship?
In a war, the right thing would be to strike the enemy wherever you find him. By your own definition, a natural use for the Harpoon under such a circumstance as I described above would be offensive.
So you think the Harpoon is not useful for sinking enemy ships in their own territory during a war? If Pakistan and India were at war, and a Pakistani destroyer in international waters outside Indian territory detected an Indian warship maneuvering inside Indian waters, would it be defensive or offensive to make the first strike and send a Harpoon hurtling towards the Indian ship?
In a war, the right thing would be to strike the enemy wherever you find him. By your own definition, a natural use for the Harpoon under such a circumstance as I described above would be offensive.
You got the point bro!
--- tum jeetay hum haaray! Happy?
On a serious note:
In this day n age, when Pakistan (or any country) buys weapons directly from another country (and not form black market), we have to sign a lot of papers that contain important clauses relating the use/abuse of the weapons. These papers and associated commandments clearly state (and duly signed by Pakistan or any other country), things such as:
--- Though shall not change the design
--- Though shall seek prior permission and obtain a license if you want to play hanky panky with these weapons.
And a lot of other conditions such as:
--- Though shall guard the design from slipping away to China etc.
--- Though shall not "initiate" hostilities with country x y z etc.
Once we sign these terms, we are legally bound, and we should not play games with these rules.
And if any of the rules are broken, the weapon supplier has every right to get the reasonable explanation.
Having said that, I doubt that the commie-leftie rag aka New York Times is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. These commie-lefties will always have a hard time accepting close military relations between Pakistan and USA.
Re: U.S. Says Pakistan Altered Missiles Sold for Defense
I'm not disagreeing with any aspect of the story. I was just amused that anyone could describe Harpoon as being more defensive, as, say, a cruise missile. The US could have sold Tomohawk cruise missiles to a country and then described them as being a defensive weapons because a piece of paper was signed saying they would not be used to start a war.