Does any one see a problem with this?

[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?
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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 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.