Does any one see a problem with this?

[cardcounter0]

Administration to sell F-16s to Pakistan.

"The sale of F-16s will not change the overall balance of power" between Pakistan and India, a senior administration official said of the decision. India's prime minister expressed "great disappointment," a spokesman in New Delhi said.

Washington blocked sales of F-16s to Pakistan in 1990 as a sanction against its nuclear program.

~~~~~~~~~
Does any one see a problem with selling advanced weapon systems to a country with nuclear capabilities that has tense relations with another country with nuclear capabilities? Wouldn't F16s be an ideal launching platform to deliver nukes to a neighboring country?

Didn't Pakistan have problems with supplying nuclear technology to terrorists a while back?

Some how this move doesn't make me feel "safer".
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't F16s be an ideal launching platform to deliver nukes to a neighboring country?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[cardcounter0]

Okay. I thought they had sophisticated radar evasion systems, capable of long flights, ability to outrun and outshoot just about any other plane in the sky, and could deliver thousand pound payloads to targets. Must have the F16 confused with some other fighter/bomber aircraft.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tek]

I see lot of dead software pirates, call center operators and stray cows in the near future...

[parttimepro]

Both India and Pakistan have missiles capable of reaching the other's capital. There's not much reason to put a nuke on an F-16 in this situation because an F-16 can be shot down or otherwise intercepted, but a missile cannot.

I don't think terrorists are too interested in building F-16's, but what do I know?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. I thought they had sophisticated radar evasion systems, capable of long flights, ability to outrun and outshoot just about any other plane in the sky, and could deliver thousand pound payloads to targets. Must have the F16 confused with some other fighter/bomber aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still doesn't make them an ideal launching platform. Intermediate range missiles are better and they already have those. Plus they have other F16s and Mirages anyway. Basically, Pakistan is already capable of conducting a large nuclear strike against India and selling them a few more F16s won't change anything.

[dr_venkman]

Perhaps the original poster was making an ethical point about the sale of weapons of mass destruction and their counterpart delivery systems to Pakistan whose leader is only in power due to a bloody military coup d'état.

Compounding this ethical question might be that it could be seen as hypocritical to be selling these aircraft to Pakistan while America is itself engaged in a war against terrorism and especially to rid that particular region of WMD's. Also Musharref has numerous Islamic friends in the western Pakistani region where Osama bin laden is said to have made a save haven at least once. Or that Musharref granted A.Q. Khan amnesty after having willingly and knowingfully distributed nuclear technology to...


Probably doesn't matter. Who wants prozac?

[Felix_Nietsche]

...and yes you are confused.

[MelchyBeau]

Vulturerow would be a better source than me, but I'd like to throw some info out for you.

F-16s are not exactly new. I believe they were being flown in the 70s.

The F-16s main role is not air to ground, yeah they can do it, but it is more suited towards air to air.

They already have jets that can carry these weapons. The A-5.

They also have Mirages as fighter craft.

I doubt they are getting these with fully up to date AF specs. I wouldn't be suprised if they don't even come with a radar.

As Much as I like to harp on Bush's administration, this doesn't really bother me. Now if he starts promising Pakistan F/A-22s yea then I'll b*tch

Melch

[andyfox]

Just yesterday Rumsfeld objected to Venezuela buying assault rifles from Russia. Kettle, black and all that, no?

[cardcounter0]

No, those assult rifles must be much more deadly weapons than an F16. According to the experts here, an F16 is pretty much a piece of junk only suitable for crop dusting.

[wacki]

sam h is right.

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/03/23/rumsfeld.venezuela.ap/

[cardcounter0]

Then you better check with Sam H. and see how Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear plant, since they used useless F16s on that mission.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"According to the experts here, an F16 is pretty much a piece of junk only suitable for crop dusting."
************************************************** *******
No....You just need to read a simple one page article on the F16 before you make silly claims about the plane.

[cardcounter0]

Sure. Here is some of its air-to-surface capabilities. No reason why missles couldn't be tipped with small nukes.

Air-to-surface missiles carried on the F-16 include Maverick, HARM and Shrike missiles, manufactured by Raytheon, and anti-ship missiles include Boeing Harpoon and Kongsberg Penguin.

The first guided launch of the new Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) was successfully carried out from an F-16 and the F-16 was the first USAF aircraft to be fitted with the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) in April 2000.

The F-16 can be fitted with Lockheed Martin Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), which provides precision guidance for CBU-87, -89, and 97 cluster munitions. The system corrects for launch transients, ballistic errors, and winds aloft.

The F-16 will be the first aircraft to use the USAF's new weapon rack, the Edo Corporation BRU-57. The BRU-57 is a vertical ejection rack which doubles the aircraft's capacity for precision-guided weapons like JDAM and WCMD.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Jeez...earth to Cardcounter.
Are you there?
These countries ALREADY have planes that can carry nukes. Selling F16s will not make a nuclear war more likely between these countries.

And the primary mission of F16 is as a fighter.
F = Fighter (eg F14, F15, F16, F22)
B = Bomber (eg B1, B2)

[cardcounter0]

Maybe you would understand a picture better:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/jsow.gif

General Characteristics:
Primary Function: Air-to-surface Standoff from Point Defense (SOPD) weapon for use against a variety of targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Co.
Guidance: GPS/INS (Global Position/Inertial), Terminal IR Seeker (AGM-154C unique)
Length: 160 inches (4.1 meters)
Diameter: box shaped 13 inches (33.02 cm) on a side
Weight: From 1,065 pounds (483 kilograms) to 1,500 pounds (681 kilograms)
Wingspan: 106 inches (2.69 meters)
Aircraft Compatibility:
Navy: F/A-18 C/D, F/A-18 E/F, AV-8B, F-35
Air Force: F-16 Block 40/50, B-1, B-2, B-52, F-15, F-117, A-10, F-35A
Range: Low altitude launch - 15 nautical miles (27.78 kilometers), High altitude launch - 65 nautical miles (120.38 kilometers)
Warhead(s): BLU-97 - Combined effects bomblets, BLU-108 - Sensor fused weapon, Broach multi-stage warhead
Unit Cost:
AUPP AGM-154A, $148,000
AGM-154C, $198,000, based on PB04, BY$(1990)
Date Deployed: January 1999

[Felix_Nietsche]

So?
And your point is?

These countries already have planes that will carry nukes.
So excuse me if I don't join you in your sky-is-falling panic attack.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, Pakistan is already capable of conducting a large nuclear strike against India and selling them a few more F16s won't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]


Indeed, and this bodes well. This is all part of Zeno's World Domination Enterprises that I have posted about before and I am happy to see things moving towards fruition. India and Pakistan should be at each other’s throats in a big way by decades end. Let the mushroom clouds fill the sky.

Le Misanthrope

[radek2166]

lets give them nukes.

[cardcounter0]

Okay, so when Reagan bombed targets in Libya, the Air Force used:

A) B-52s and an old B-49.
B) B-1 Bombers.
C) Sopworth Camel from the Smithsonion.
D) F-18 Hornets which uses interchangable weapons systems with the F-16

[cardcounter0]

The F16 is capable of flights at speeds of Mach 2.

They didn't have planes that could do that, and unlike a missle silo, it would not be launching nukes from a fixed point that could be monitored and intercepted.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Are you going to regurgitate all that info you just learned in the last 5 minutes?

Dude, these countries already have nukes and delivery systems.
Selling watered-down F16 Export versions of a plane that was deployed over 20 years ago will not alter the blance of power between India and Pakistan.

As for the miltary strategy on nuclear delivery systems (missle silos vs planes,) I don't think you're qualified to discuss these military tactics....

[cardcounter0]

and five minutes ago you said this:

And the primary mission of F16 is as a fighter.
F = Fighter (eg F14, F15, F16, F22)
B = Bomber (eg B1, B2)

So why did we use the Navy version of the F16 to bomb Libya?
Why did Israel use the F16 to destory the nuke plant in Iran? Shouldn't they have used bombers or missles?

Why didn't we sell Saddam F16s? He already had missles. What harm could a few F16s do?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Jeez-us
Can you not go to a dictionary and look up the word "Primary"?

"Why didn't we sell Saddam F16s? He already had missles. What harm could a few F16s do?"
************************************************** *****
Gee whiz...I dunno.
Do you think it because we have been at war(shooting at each other) with Saddam since the early 1990s.

You might want to actually put some thought into a question before you ask it.

[vulturesrow]

I think major item for debate is whether or not having these aircraft will make Pakistan more likely to attack India with nukes. I dont believe so personally, given that they already have sufficient technology to do so.

Some clarifications on the F-16. While it was envisioned and created it was as a specialized figther aircraft. In reality today it is mostly used as an air to ground delivery platform. That being said, the version the Pakistanis are getting is extremely watered down. Also I am not sure what cardcounter's point was in posting information about various bombs and other ordnance was, but pakistan doesnt have that ordnance.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
The F16 is capable of flights at speeds of Mach 2.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably high-altitude, with nothing on its external points...too much drag. There's a big difference in doing Mach 2 and doing Mach 2 when it counts.

Why don't we sell them a couple of X-wing fighters?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
selling them a few more F16s won't change anything

[/ QUOTE ]
It won't change much in the balance of terror between Pakistan and India, but poor countries don't spend a billion dollars on fighters for no reason. One would think that it would at least further Pakistan's ability to wage war, including against its own population.

It also affects U.S. foreign policy by sending a signal to actual and potential "allies" about the sort of regime the U.S. hopes to foster and sustain in the Middle East and Central Asia. Specifically,

1. It rewards Pakistan for buying uranium hexaflouride (which can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium) from North Korea.

2. It rewards Pakistan for selling the same uranium hexaflouride to the formerly State Dept.-designated terrorist state of Libya.

3. It rewards Pakistan for pardoning Abdel Qadeer Khan, the top Pakistani nuclear scientist who ran network that sold nuclear weapons technology to Libya.

4. It rewards Pakistan for retaining laws that allow honor killers of women to go unpunished (1200 women killed last year).

5. It rewards Pakistan for ongoing human rights violations (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/pakist9852.htm) ever since Musharrif assumed power, such as torturing and murdering farmers who refused to cede their land rights to the army, widespread arbitrary arrest and detention, harrassment and intimidation of the press, and a general lack of due process and democratic norms.

In short, it proves that rhetoric about supporting democracy or human rights continues to eclipsed by more hard-nosed concerns about developing symbiotic relations with geopolitically important states, regardless of whether those regimes give short shrift to the interests of their populations, Americans or the world at large. As Rice recently told Pakistani TV, the U.S. "will remain committed to this relationship for the long term" and be a friend of Pakistan "for life."

I'm not sure that the F-16's wouldn't be such a good platform. Rep. Sam Johnson (R. Tex) recently told a gathering that "I can fly and F-15, put two nukes on [Syria], and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore." Although he later conceded that he was just joking about exterminating all the Syrians. (From this month's American Prospect).

[sam h]

Chris,

I would say that selling Pakistan F-16s rewards them despite all those reasons you listed, which is a bit different than saying it rewards them for those reasons, an assertion I don't think is really true.

I don't think the sale is going to suddenly open anybody's eyes to American hypocrisy and the distance between our rhetoric and our actions when dealing with certain strategically important regimes. That our support of "freedom and democracy" in the middle east is more bark than bite has been obvious for a long time. Nor do I think this one arms sale is a very important policy issue in the larger scheme of things.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that selling Pakistan F-16s rewards them despite all those reasons you listed, which is a bit different than saying it rewards them for those reasons, an assertion I don't think is really true

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree and didn't mean to imply that the U.S. rewarded Musharrif's regime for its many offenses. Like Syria, Pakistan is run by a rotten, corrupt, terror-supporting regime. The difference is that it's one of our rotten, corrupt terror-supporting regimes, and therefore gets rewarded with huge shipments of military hardware while Syria is the exemplar of All That We Oppose. If the alignment were otherwise the rhetoric would be the same; you'd just have to substitute the names of the countries. Then we'd see the same robots on this forum spouting all sorts of indignation against Pakistani Islamicism, Pakistani honor killings, Pakistani harboring of al Qaeda, Pakistani terrorism against India, while parroting propaganda about Syria as an "ally" embarking on the long, hard road to democracy, freedom, etc. etc.

It's not a question of U.S. rhetoric being overblown or oversimplified. Its that the rhetoric has a zero correlation to reality.

[ACPlayer]

We need a new NPT -- Nuke Proliferation Treaty.

Nukes for all.

[ACPlayer]

Bingo.

And of course, in ten years our friends are our enemies and we have made them. Didn't Cheney do the same two step with Saddam.

Supporting Mushie given his real track record is stupid and short sighted.

[trippin bily]

" THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND "

[Felix_Nietsche]

Your right about Pakistan's role in spreading nuclear weapons technology.
Pakistan falls under the category: "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

The original discussion was on the F16, was its ability to alter Pakistan's ability to wage a nuclear war. Selling F16s (export versions) to Pakistan will have little or no effect in Pakistan's nuclear capabilities.

F16s WILL improved Pakistan's ability to wage a conventional war.
F16s are excellent fighters and very economical. I believe India already has F16's, so Pakistan having F16s will even the balance of air power between India and Pakistan (and bring jobs to Ft.Worth, Tx).

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Pakistan falls under the category: "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

[/ QUOTE ]
Which applies with equal force to Pakistan's most powerful foreign supporter, President Bush.

[BillUCF]

The F-16 comes in versions A, B, C, D, E, and F. Maybe more since I was in the USAF. We sell the stripped down versions to 3rd world countries like Pakistan. From a military point of view it is to our advantage to sell these aircraft to Pakistan as opposed to Pakistan getting aircraft from some other country. Since we make the F-16 and know every capability of the aircraft, if we end up having to fight against it one day we know exactly what we would be up against. We would be able to destroy all of their F-16's quite easily if it came to that. Also it provides business for US industry as opposed to a business from another country.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is an interesting point, and not without merit. I would rather we were more open about the fact that the Pentagon is just our society's way of publicly subsidizing high technology. I'd rather we didn't have to build better weapons so we have better weapons than the people we sold our old one's to. If you think about it spending on weapons is a huge waste of money, because they aren't wealth. The work that goes into building them doesn't result in wealth the way investment in infrastructure does.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you better check with Sam H. and see how Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear plant, since they used useless F16s on that mission.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

They actually destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant, the reactor in Osirak in 1982.

It is noteworthy that Space Shuttle Columbia astronaut Ilan Ramon was one of the pilots on that mission.