US defends Pakistan F-16 jet deal

[DevilDog#1]

The US has defended its decision to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, in the face of opposition from India.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Washington Post newspaper the US was trying to build relations with Pakistan and India at the same time.

India - which may also buy F-16s in the future - has warned the US deal with Pakistan risks creating an arms race.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has welcomed the move, seen as a reward for supporting the US war on terror.

It marks a change in US policy, which blocked the sale of F-16s in 1990 over Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.



Mr Aziz said the fighters would help the Pakistani air force maintain an effective deterrence level - but stressed Pakistan had no aggressive intentions towards any country.

In an interview published in the Washington Post, Ms Rice tried to allay India's concerns that the deal could disturb the region's military balance.

"What we're trying to do is to solidify and extend relations with both India and Pakistan at a time when we have good relations with both of them, something that most people didn't think could be done, and when they have improving relationships with one another," she said.

"What we're trying to do is break out of the notion that this is a hyphenated relationship somehow, that anything that happens that's good for Pakistan has to be bad for India and vice versa."

Nuclear plants

Ms Rice said she had been struck by the 11 September Commission advice to "invest in the relationship with Pakistan" or risk recreating the situation of the 1990s, when it forged links to the Taleban in Afghanistan.

She went on: "Pakistan has come a long way, it's on a better trajectory than it's ever been, or that it's been in many, many years."

Washington also declared plans for "a decisively broader strategic relationship" with India on Friday - and has not ruled out helping it develop nuclear power plants.

"We're a step away from that, certainly, but looking at their energy needs and trying to understand how they can be met," Ms Rice said.

A spokesman for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he had expressed "great disappointment" on Friday about the decision to supply F-16s to Pakistan.

But India is contemplating a "very large" purchase of fighter planes, a state department official said.

Peace dialogue

Pakistan struck a deal with the US for F-16 jets in the late 1980s, but Washington blocked the sale in 1990 as a sanction against Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.

The revived sale will form part of a five-year, $3bn assistance programme.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence in 1947, two of them over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The nations came to the brink of another war in 2002 but are now engaged in a two-year thaw that has seen improved relations.

The F-16 is built by Lockheed Martin and is one of the world's most successful fighter aircraft, with about 4,500 in commission globally.

[DevilDog#1]

This came about after Pakistan secretly provided UN's International Atomic Energy inspectors with parts that helped Iran build nuclear reactors and possible weapons.

[Lakie]

yeah ive always thought the pakistan us relationship agreement could really backfire especially given indias supiriority in the arms department. Im worried pakistan will do something in Kashmir and expect the US to back them or something.

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
yeah ive always thought the pakistan us relationship agreement could really backfire especially given indias supiriority in the arms department. Im worried pakistan will do something in Kashmir and expect the US to back them or something.

Pakis aren't relying on US for any possible "adventures." China would be a better option.

If I recollect correctly, Pakis still blame US for not showing up during the last fullscale war with India in 1971, in which Pakistan was divided and Bangladesh was created. Pakis and US had SEATO and CENTO agreements, which meant US would have to come to aid of Pakistan or any other party of that agreement if invaded from outside. Point to remember is that local nationalist in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, were trained and armed my Indian military, and they started a kinda of a civil war against loca government and Paki military. Then India came to their aid openly. This was the technical point that the US used that since it was a civil war and not a direct outside invasion, we can't help.

I don't see a fullscale war in the presence of Nukes by both sides. However, if there are any "adventures" like "Kargil" China would be a better partner.

[Lakie]

I think pakistan has long forgiven the US, what with the kickbacks they got for helping out in Afghanistan. I wouldnt be relying on the US to agree with any treaties, i just hope pakistan realise it. I agree that a Nuclear War wont happen in any rush, but there still could be serious skirmishes there.

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
I think pakistan has long forgiven the US, what with the kickbacks they got for helping out in Afghanistan. I wouldnt be relying on the US to agree with any treaties, i just hope pakistan realise it. I agree that a Nuclear War wont happen in any rush, but there still could be serious skirmishes there.

During my schooling I did a paper on after affects of 1971 war on Pakistan. I believe they were very similar to those we have had with Vietnam. Even though there was no division of country when it came to us.

I think the military leadership in Pakistan had the brains to switch sides on Afghans because it was either that or MOABs.

[atholon]

WTF would we want to give them the F-16's give em some old F-4's. Why would they need F-16's? They have been doing fine thus far. If they need that kind of defense then let them invent their own freaking airplanes.

That's smart lets give people who could potentialy turn out to be our enemies, one of our best fighters.

I bet they are going to be giving SuperHornets and F-15's to Iraq....

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by atholon
WTF would we want to give them the F-16's give em some old F-4's. Why would they need F-16's? They have been doing fine thus far. If they need that kind of defense then let them invent their own freaking airplanes.

That's smart lets give people who could potentialy turn out to be our enemies, one of our best fighters.

I bet they are going to be giving SuperHornets and F-15's to Iraq....

Ahhmmm ... That's called keeping jobs for Companies which paid for your campaign.

[atholon]

Well they don't even need it unless there was a full scale war between them and india.

I think if these countries want to kill themselves off they should use their own weapons. We should not be giving them ours.

"To seal the deal, we'll throw a few nukes in as well."

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by atholon
Well they don't even need it unless there was a full scale war between them and india.

I think if these countries want to kill themselves off they should use their own weapons. We should not be giving them ours.

"To seal the deal, we'll throw a few nukes in as well."

Alas! I see you have no grasp of International Politics.

[atholon]

you're right. Neither does the UN

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by atholon
you're right. Neither does the UN

I'll disect UN in another thread, this one is about F16s.

[Lakie]

If youre the one giving out weapons then you have a very good idea what everyone has, thats better than not knowing at all what the otehr side has....

And if everyone kept the technlogy to themselves, noone except for a couple of European countries and Australia would have the nuclear bomb. The vast mineral resources of the world that is udes in making the weapons would be cut off from eveyone. Basically the United States would cease to be a superpower of any sort.

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
If youre the one giving out weapons then you have a very good idea what everyone has, thats better than not knowing at all what the otehr side has....

And if everyone kept the technlogy to themselves, noone except for a couple of European countries and Australia would have the nuclear bomb. The vast mineral resources of the world that is udes in making the weapons would be cut off from eveyone. Basically the United States would cease to be a superpower of any sort.

I believe we're supporting former russian controled areas because they're loaded with minerals, Oil, metals, etc.

[atholon]

Ohh ok I get it.

Still don't you think they'd go for a Few F-4's

At least wait till we get the F-22 in service.

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by atholon
Ohh ok I get it.

Still don't you think they'd go for a Few F-4's

At least wait till we get the F-22 in service.

They both had Russian and Chinese planes with equate to F4s

[DevilDog#1]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
And if everyone kept the technlogy to themselves, noone except for a couple of European countries and Australia would have the nuclear bomb. The vast mineral resources of the world that is udes in making the weapons would be cut off from eveyone. Basically the United States would cease to be a superpower of any sort.

Sounds like someone has apperations to be a Superpower!!

[Trojan]

Phantoms, lmao. I doubt there is even one still flying... .-troj

[atholon]

Hehehe, I bet the Pakistanies could get one of them in the air

I wouldn't care if they had the blasted F22 out but they are taking FOREVER and the have been planning it for like 20 years.

[zza1pqx]

Same with the Eurofighter.
I preferred it when there were different planes for different jobs.
How dull will modern flight sims be when there are only 3 planes in the skies?