US sells F-16s to Pakistan

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This is damn near treasonous, not to mention blatently immoral.

How is this treason or immoral?

Well, I believe that Pakistan is anything but a friend of America. They just helped us with Afghanistan to take any heat of their screwed up backwards country. India on the other hand is a democratic country and a friend of America.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I understand what they've done for us, but of what use are these F16s, why not give economic aid? They say to "fight terrorism" but do you really need these to fight terrorism? You say if they held free elections extremists would get voted in. Exactly why I wouldnt want to sell these to Pakistan. Who knows, in 5-10 years Musharraf could be gone and the country will be in the hands of a extremist, who'll have his own fleet of F16s and nuclear bombs.

With the right equipment and properly trained pilots, F-16s are quite effective for conducting aerial reconnaissance well beyond the range of all but the most sophisticated of ground based aerial defense weapons.

Given that we suspect Al Quaida, and possibly Bin Laden, is holed up somewhere in the more remote mountain regions of Pakistan, these F-16s could prove quite useful.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Aimster
Pakistan has done everything they could do to help the U.S fight the war on terrorism.
What more could they have done?

They allowed U.S forces to enter Pakistan.
They helped caputure and hand over a handful of wanted terrorist
They even captured Daniel Pearl's killer
They have shared intelligence on Afghanistan
They have shared information about Iran

The President of Pakistan is being targeted for death because of his support for the U.S.

Be democratic, like India.

If you want Pakistan to hold free elections then lets do it. Say good-bye President who likes the U.S.
Say hello extremist.

Pakistan is holding elections, however the military will still be in the same hands. The rest of the country will have their elections as promised shortly like Musaraf has promised. The conditions are that Musaraf will still run the military.

I understand what they've done for us, but of what use are these F16s, why not give economic aid? They say to "fight terrorism" but do you really need these to fight terrorism? You say if they held free elections extremists would get voted in. Exactly why I wouldnt want to sell these to Pakistan. Who knows, in 5-10 years Musharraf could be gone and the country will be in the hands of a extremist, who'll have his own fleet of F16s and nuclear bombs.

If you ask me, economic aid would be vastly preferable. Pakistan can never really put use to those F-16s anyways, although of course with that reasoning no country in the world she field an army at all. So it was either selling Pakistan 24 useless fighter jets, or refund the $150 million they paid for them.

Now, class, which of those two options is more dangerous in its possible perversion and use for terroristic purposes? Smart people, those guys and gals in the U.S. administration.

 

[rickn]

I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: rickn
I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

IIRC, Pakistan used Canadian nuclear reactors legitimately sold to them decades ago as breeders to enrich the uranium (mined in-country), which is the hardest part. The actual building of a nuke relatively elementary for a physicist with a few good engineers at his disposal. And if North Korea can manage it...

On the other hand we have the modern, extremely complex and proprietary electronic arming and firing system of the F-16. First they'd have to miniaturize the nuke and put it into a form firable from an aircraft. Then they'd have to deal with the secure arming and firing mechanism. And loop that all into the electronic controls of the F-16 with no help whatsoever from the American programmers who know the ins and outs of the system. That's one helluva tall order.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: rickn
I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

Yup, we made sure they can't do it unless they head over to radio shack and buy a $5 female-to-female adapter

 

[Aimster]

Well, Pakistan already paid for those F-16s. India has SU-30s Pakistan has F-16s. Seems balanced to me.

It doesn't matter if they have them or not. If war was to ever happen, say good-bye India and Pakistan. Nuclear bombs > F-16s.

Wouldn't it be safe to let them have more toys to fight each other with? If they run out of toys the only toy left will be Nuclear toys.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Well, Pakistan already paid for those F-16s. India has SU-30s Pakistan has F-16s. Seems balanced to me.

It doesn't matter if they have them or not. If war was to ever happen, say good-bye India and Pakistan. Nuclear bombs > F-16s.

Wouldn't it be safe to let them have more toys to fight each other with? If they run out of toys the only toy left will be Nuclear toys.

That argument has never been correct before, and it isn't correct now. Arming both sides of a potential conflict is not going to reduce the potential devastation, never has, never will.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Aimster
Well, Pakistan already paid for those F-16s. India has SU-30s Pakistan has F-16s. Seems balanced to me.

It doesn't matter if they have them or not. If war was to ever happen, say good-bye India and Pakistan. Nuclear bombs > F-16s.

Wouldn't it be safe to let them have more toys to fight each other with? If they run out of toys the only toy left will be Nuclear toys.

That argument has never been correct before, and it isn't correct now. Arming both sides of a potential conflict is not going to reduce the potential devastation, never has, never will.

But that arguement has never been tested before I'm not saying it will avoid conflict. It might stop a nuclear war.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Aimster
Well, Pakistan already paid for those F-16s. India has SU-30s Pakistan has F-16s. Seems balanced to me.

It doesn't matter if they have them or not. If war was to ever happen, say good-bye India and Pakistan. Nuclear bombs > F-16s.

Wouldn't it be safe to let them have more toys to fight each other with? If they run out of toys the only toy left will be Nuclear toys.

That argument has never been correct before, and it isn't correct now. Arming both sides of a potential conflict is not going to reduce the potential devastation, never has, never will.

But that arguement has never been tested before I'm not saying it will avoid conflict. It might stop a nuclear war.

It might, but it also provides a gateway to armed conflict; refuse to sell weapons to both sides, or even just to one side (while diplomatically preventing takeover by the armed country) and you should be able to prvent any sort of conflict, by keeping the powder keg empty

Given that the planes were ordered before the embargo was put in place, I can understand that the deal goes through, BUT, if this were Iraq post gulf war, would the decision have been the same? I highly doubt it.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: rickn
I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

IIRC, Pakistan used Canadian nuclear reactors legitimately sold to them decades ago as breeders to enrich the uranium (mined in-country), which is the hardest part. The actual building of a nuke relatively elementary for a physicist with a few good engineers at his disposal. And if North Korea can manage it...

On the other hand we have the modern, extremely complex and proprietary electronic arming and firing system of the F-16. First they'd have to miniaturize the nuke and put it into a form firable from an aircraft. Then they'd have to deal with the secure arming and firing mechanism. And loop that all into the electronic controls of the F-16 with no help whatsoever from the American programmers who know the ins and outs of the system. That's one helluva tall order.

BS I bet 20 minutes and some duck tape you could find a way to mount a nuclear bomb in an F-16. Heck isn't the f-16 designed for two people? Just ripe out all the stuff for the other person and stike the nuclear weapons in the back seat. God knows muslism don't have any problem blowing themselfes up.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: rickn
I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

IIRC, Pakistan used Canadian nuclear reactors legitimately sold to them decades ago as breeders to enrich the uranium (mined in-country), which is the hardest part. The actual building of a nuke relatively elementary for a physicist with a few good engineers at his disposal. And if North Korea can manage it...

On the other hand we have the modern, extremely complex and proprietary electronic arming and firing system of the F-16. First they'd have to miniaturize the nuke and put it into a form firable from an aircraft. Then they'd have to deal with the secure arming and firing mechanism. And loop that all into the electronic controls of the F-16 with no help whatsoever from the American programmers who know the ins and outs of the system. That's one helluva tall order.

BS I bet 20 minutes and some duck tape you could find a way to mount a nuclear bomb in an F-16. Heck isn't the f-16 designed for two people? Just ripe out all the stuff for the other person and stike the nuclear weapons in the back seat. God knows muslism don't have any problem blowing themselfes up.

Why would they do that?
Why would they strap a bomb on an F16 when they can just launch one on a missile?

I guess we shouldn't sell Pakistan any type of airplane.

 

[StageLeft]

Little does Pakistan know that these all have built in remote controls, and if Pakistan and the US ever get into a tiff, guys over at washington will make the planes turn around and kamikaze the pakistani ground forces.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: rickn
I think its funny that it was mentioned the f16's were crippled and could not carry nuclear capable missiles.

so we're suppose to believe the same country that successfully created and tested nuclear weapons couldn't strap a nuke to an aircraft?

IIRC, Pakistan used Canadian nuclear reactors legitimately sold to them decades ago as breeders to enrich the uranium (mined in-country), which is the hardest part. The actual building of a nuke relatively elementary for a physicist with a few good engineers at his disposal. And if North Korea can manage it...

On the other hand we have the modern, extremely complex and proprietary electronic arming and firing system of the F-16. First they'd have to miniaturize the nuke and put it into a form firable from an aircraft. Then they'd have to deal with the secure arming and firing mechanism. And loop that all into the electronic controls of the F-16 with no help whatsoever from the American programmers who know the ins and outs of the system. That's one helluva tall order.

BS I bet 20 minutes and some duck tape you could find a way to mount a nuclear bomb in an F-16. Heck isn't the f-16 designed for two people? Just ripe out all the stuff for the other person and stike the nuclear weapons in the back seat. God knows muslism don't have any problem blowing themselfes up.

1) The Falcon is designed for one pilot.
2) The weapon would have to be dropped accurately. That requires knowing where the launch platform is located and attidue of the platform. That information is available from the avionics bus.
3) Unless they rewire the weapons system, they would have to interface with the weapons control data bus. Information from the weapons computer and commands have to be send to activate and release the weapon. That some of that information would be suppressed for FMS (Foreign Military Sales) if desired/required by the US government.

4) Even in WWII sophisticate bomb sights were used to try and control bombing runs. Seat of the pants bombing stopped after WWI and the Spanish civil war.
A/C started going to fast/high for the human eye to accurately predict the trajectory of a bomb.

 

[SuperTool]

Republicans are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[Engineer]

They're trying to fix the trade deficit.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Nice ... we are fighting IslamoFascists and now we also sell them advanced weaponry...

Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed,
those who are cold and not clothed.
? Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower was kinda stupid, ya know? If you say that any of these things, which are presumably items purchased and used by those who own their money, are theft from those who *don't* own that money, you're derailing the *entire* concept of private property.

Shame on you for thoughtless quoting.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: drewshin
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050325/pl_nm/southasia_fighters_dc

Wow at this point, Iran must really want those nuclear weapons in their hands, then they'd be able to buy all sorts of weapons from us in a few years. let bygones be bygones. what do you think these F16s are for? to counter any indian air superiority in a battle or war, yes our supposed friends in india.

why do you think our government is so against the EU lifting weapons sanctions against the chinese? because we already sold to taiwan! we can't look like a bad guy by selling to both sides, but i'm sure they'll come up with some type of way in soon, china is too big of a market to not be part of the action.

Look at the bright side: We're not selling them any of the newer and cooler stuff! Instead they get the 20+ year old plane that we can whip on any time we want

Jason

 

[kreactor]

and in anticipation of ps3, throw in a few antiquated ps2s for guidance systems

 

[MisterCornell]

It was Pakistan that created and propped up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the first place. Their reward for "helping" to end the Taliban regime should be being tolerated by the international community. They are a rogue state and should not be outfitted with fighter jets.

 

You know, the US had the money from Pakistan before they tested Nuclear weapons. Because of the test, all sales to Pakistan were halted, yet the US kept the money...600 million worth. This has been a major concern of pakistans since it happened, and yet none of you mention this. This is merely the completion of a sale that was already signed and sealed. If anything, this will allow the US more leverage when it comes to fighting terrorism in the area. India shouldn't have any major concerns considering its large economy. But the leftest circle jerk in this forum doesn't reconize all these facts, do they?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
You know, the US had the money from Pakistan before they tested Nuclear weapons. Because of the test, all sales to Pakistan were halted, yet the US kept the money...600 million worth. This has been a major concern of pakistans since it happened, and yet none of you mention this. This is merely the completion of a sale that was already signed and sealed. If anything, this will allow the US more leverage when it comes to fighting terrorism in the area. India shouldn't have any major concerns considering its large economy. But the leftest circle jerk in this forum doesn't reconize all these facts, do they?

Given Bush's 'supposed' interest in fighting terrorism, one would think that refunding the money plus interest (or whatever other penalties might be in the contracts), and not handing over the jets would be preferable. But hey, a dollar is a dollar, and screw ideology.

Just remember that the next time Bush wants to invade another country.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
You know, the US had the money from Pakistan before they tested Nuclear weapons. Because of the test, all sales to Pakistan were halted, yet the US kept the money...600 million worth. This has been a major concern of pakistans since it happened, and yet none of you mention this. This is merely the completion of a sale that was already signed and sealed. If anything, this will allow the US more leverage when it comes to fighting terrorism in the area. India shouldn't have any major concerns considering its large economy. But the leftest circle jerk in this forum doesn't reconize all these facts, do they?

so what if they had the money, pakistan developed nuclear weapons in defiance of international treaties and in secrecy. pakistan is involved with the dissemenation of nuclear technology to at least libya, iran, and north korea. and for this they get rewarded with F16s? their cooperation on the war on terrorism is the least they could do to try to rectify the harm they've done. bush wants to keep the weapons restrictions on china, but suddenly lift them on pakistan?

 

[Promethply]

Probably to counter the growing might of India in the region.

 

[jbaggins]

HORRIBLE idea