Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 09 Oct 2010 07:39

Chinese Arms for Pakistan
The Pioneer

A major reason why there are virtually no takers in the world of China’s rather unique nuclear cooperation with Pakistan has been Islamabad’s refusal to come clean about the involvement of its military establishment in the proliferation activities of the so-called ‘AQ Khan network’.

We are all asked to believe that AQ Khan singlehandedly transferred nuclear weapons designs and know-how on centrifuge uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran.

Everyone knows that not even a pin can be moved out of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities without the approval of its Army establishment. To, therefore, claim that AQ Khan ran a ‘rogue’ proliferation network selling nuclear secrets without the knowledge of the Army top brass is about as credible as Pakistani assertions that the 26/11 Mumbai outrage was the work of ‘non-state actors’, carried out without the knowledge of its military establishment.

It has now been revealed by American nuclear scientists Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman after elaborate deliberations with Chinese nuclear scientists and others that the 35th nuclear test carried out in China at Lop Nor on May 26, 1990, was of a Pakistan-assembled, Chinese designed fission weapon.

The design of this weapon corresponded to the nuclear weapons design given by AQ Khan in the shopping bag of his Rawalpindi tailor to the Libyans.

India has to realise that while dealing with Pakistan, which is a dysfunctional entity, It Really is Facing an Assertive China, Determined on its Strategic Containment.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 11 Oct 2010 17:51

Pak accelerates pace of its nuclear weapons programme: Watchdog

LONDON: Pakistan has been secretly accelerating pace of its nuclear weapons programme and it has assembled 70 to 90 nuclear warheads as against India's 60 to 80, a Washington-based nuclear watchdog has claimed.

The Institute for Science and International Security has obtained satellite images showing that a row of cooling towers at Pakistan's secret Khushab-III reactor has been completed, The Daily Telegraph reported.

This suggests the plant could begin operation within months, allowing Pakistan to increase substantially its stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium, it said.

Work at Khushab-III has forged ahead even as Pakistan struggles to cope with floods that have inflicted damage estimated at 27 billion pounds - and amid mounting concerns over the long-term security of the country's nuclear arsenal, the report said.

Pakistan argues that its nuclear programme is necessary to counter the superior conventional forces of India, the report said.

A report, published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, estimated it had assembled 70-90 nuclear warheads to India's 60-80, and had produced, enough fissile material to make a further 90.

According to the report, the US is also disturbed by Chinese plans to build two new nuclear reactors in Pakistan, bypassing rules that bar sales of nuclear equipment to states that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2012 NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN, Let's see if the evil yindoos chankiyaas have an ace up their sleeve!!!

KrishnaMu · Post by **KrishnaMu** » 12 Oct 2010 02:38

Construction of Third Heavy Water Reactor at Khushab Nuclear Site in Pakistan Progressing

Construction of the third reactor has progressed more quickly than the second reactor. This is evident when comparing the two reactors at similar points in their construction. From the time of initial clearing and excavation for the second reactor, it took at least six years before its cooling towers appeared complete in commercial satellite imagery. In contrast, it took Pakistan less than fives years from when initial excavation is visible in commercial satellite imagery until the third reactor’s cooling towers appear finished.

There is clear sat picture and google earth picture of 2009 for better comparison.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 15 Oct 2010 17:17

Army Chief Stating The Obivious

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 17 Oct 2010 10:44

X-Post

Finally Confessions

"JF-17 Not As Advanced As LCA, But It Can Drop Bombs" : Nawaz Sharif

Clicky for Bigger Scan

Air Cmde (Retd) Parvez H Khokhar served as India's Air Advisor in Pakistan and is also former Project Director (Flight Test) on the Light Combat Aircraft programme.

Copyright & Courtesy Vayu

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Oct 2010 18:07

ET reports..
US putting final touches to new $2 bn assistance to Pak

WTF

The US is preparing a new USD 2 billion security assistance to Pakistan over the next five years to bolster the country's anti-terrorism capability , notwithstanding objections raised by New Delhi that the aid could be diverted for use against India.

The package aims to address Pakistan's insistence that it does not have the wherewithal "to go after terrorists" and will pave the way for supply of American helicopters, weapon systems and advanced technical equipment to intercept communication to Islamabad, CNN reported quoting US officials.

The security assistance is expected to be unveiled at the US-Pak strategic dialogue being held here later this week and is being sanctioned inspite of the Obama administration of late being critical of Islamabad's sincerity in the fight against terrorism, the TV network said. The USD 2 billion package will be on top of billions of dollars that the Obama Administration has already given to Pakistan in military aid and a USD 7.5 billion aid package over five years in non-military counter terrorism assistance approved by Congress last year.

"They key is to beef up their ability to go after militants, it can't be diverted to other threats," one senior US official was quoted as saying. Islamabad has been stonewalling pressure from Washington to launch a major military campaign on North Waziristan, which US security agencies believe to be the hot-bed of al-Qaeda, Haqqani network and other militant groups.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 19 Oct 2010 19:37

The US is again preparing alms for the international beggar after it started whining again about not being suitable compensated.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 19 Oct 2010 19:47

There seems to be a good game playing in the background. The U.S don't want to take Russian assistance. Hence they have to stick with the Pakis. But it is not clear why they are in Afghanistan instead of Pakistan where every terrorist is hiding. For the Pakis, this is a golden oppurtunity to weaken the west and spread their tentacles across the world. The Pakis speeding their nuclear programme is because they know very well that within a short period of time the U.S will have to enter Pakistan and before that, if they have enough nuclear materials and No-dongs then they can deter the U.S and the Europeans.
There is only one way to win, if the U.S really wish to do it. First is delink India and China from the equation completely and concentrate on the issue from a Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan viewpoint. Then with Russian assistance get into Pakistan while offering the same military deals to Afghanistan instead of Pakistan. Stopping all aids to Pakistan and making them fall in line while strengthening Afghanistan.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 22 Oct 2010 14:59

Was reading the puke sp arty numbers on wiki - they total up to 600+ pieces. Won’t that pose a problem/be a concern for us?

M110 203 mm 60
M109A2 155 mm 200
M109A4 155 mm 350
M109A5 155 mm 115
NORINCO SH1 155 mm ~90

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Oct 2010 15:49

Don't go by the numbers posted on Wiki....better source of these numbers is the SIPRI Arms Register.

As per SIPRI, the transfers till 2009 of M109A1/A2 were - 64/36/52/115 in 83-84/84-85(A2 version)/88-89(A2 version)/07-09(A5 version).

The deals in 2005 (for 07-09 delivery) were for ex-US pieces.

And, IIRC, some 48 pieces of the A5 version have been transferred so far in 2010. So, the sum total is 315 units - assuming all of them are in use.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 23 Oct 2010 09:52

Details of that $2bn package:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =MID&s=TOP

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 24 Oct 2010 22:29

Cross posting...

India Calls for Strict Monitoring of U.S. Military Aid to Pakistan
...
These events come at a crucial time preceding President Obama's December visit to India. Top defense and aerospace majors are pitching for lucrative defense deals in India and fear that U.S. giveaways to regional rival Pakistan might tip the balance against American companies in favor of Russian, Israeli and European companies in closely contested deals.
...

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Oct 2010 23:04

Cross - Post

India Today » The Big Story
The ChiPak Threat

Sandeep Unnithan
October 23, 2010

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Oct 2010 13:35

US to handover 5 F-16 today

Second consignment of 5 United States F-16 fighter jets will arrive in Pakistan on Saturday.

Out of 18 jets, that US promised to deliver by the end of this year, 3 fighter planes have been already given to Pakistan while 5 will come today and the remaining 10 will be handed over by the end of December.

Five F-16 will land at Shahbaz Airbase in Jacobabad.

Senior officials of Pakistan Air force would be present at Shahbaz Airbase on the arrival of these planes.

Sources said that arrival of these 5 F-16 jets were scheduled in September but due to flood it had been delayed.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Oct 2010 23:34

I have written this before, but just as in the 80s India ignored pakistan's aquisition of N weapons, while the massa looked the other way because they needed the pakis if afghanistan, the same thing is happening today.

Pakistan now with three N reactors, two of the much bigger ones churning out Pu is on its way to making Pu warheads and putting them on it missiles. India and GoI is twiddling its thumbs, and massa is forced to look the other way because of its war on terror in Af-Pak.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 31 Oct 2010 03:49

Gaganji, when the former SU split into numerous stans, each stan fancied itself as a new-clear power. How many of those stans are New-clear powers now?
Relax!, let the Pawkis practice vinashakaale vipareetha buddhi, let them make Pu instead of feeding those displaced by the floods or those made homeless by the 2005 earth e quake.

Bottom line is that bakistan is an ageing ~Wh(al-g)ore who will sell everything for a price, and the price goes down as the Wh(0)re gets older.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2010 08:49

Gagan wrote:Pakistan now with three N reactors, two of the much bigger ones churning out Pu is on its way to making Pu warheads and putting them on it missiles. India and GoI is twiddling its thumbs, and massa is forced to look the other way because of its war on terror in Af-Pak.

If ever we could stop/delay Pakis getting Nukes that was in early 80's by attacking their only reactor and dealing with what comes after , but thats billion times better then dealing with Nuke pakistan as we are doing now.

It just shows not taking a decision at the right time has its own consequences ,these new reactors will probably be bankrolled by Saudis as they did for their entire program early on.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2010 09:43

er, since the pakis got their initial and perhaps some of current lot of nuclear bombs from china, there is a school of thought that attacking kahuta then and triggering a war would only have served chinese ends because they would kit up the pakis again after the ceasefire. the claims are that kahuta did not produce materials or design for the initial pakistani devices.

situation could be modelled as:
jihadi tanzeems are a arm of pakistan state that gives deniability
pakistan state is a arm of chinese state that gives deniability

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 31 Oct 2010 11:00

at least TSP is purposefully building a nuke arsenal...s long as they have mil. power, I do not see why they will collapse. USSR was diff. at least the pop. there belived they wanted better standard of living, etc. In TSP, they can afford to not feed their people and build nukes...

It is a pity our govt. is not openly matching the buildup. We should not just match it, but build a gigantic nuke arsenal..instead , we waste on "welfare schemes" like "food for all", "employment for all", etc that only benifit corrupt politicians. Maybe, keeping strategic decision making away from politicians and in the hands of the military complex is something India must also try...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2010 11:15

Singha yes that is a possibility that cannot be over ruled , there's also a case that India was not a full fledge nuclear weapons state back them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2010 11:19

ramdas wrote:It is a pity our govt. is not openly matching the buildup. We should not just match it, but build a gigantic nuke arsenal..instead , we waste on "welfare schemes" like "food for all", "employment for all", etc that only benifit corrupt politicians. Maybe, keeping strategic decision making away from politicians and in the hands of the military complex is something India must also try...

Well I wouldnt call feeding the poor and needy people of India and generating employment is a waste , if any thing else its just a right thing to do and much more should be done.

Corruption effect every sphere in our society and corrupt politician would earn more money via kickbacks from bigger and better arms deal if that is the path we took. Now nobody is immune and if you see the recent Kargil housing episode there are biggies in military thats involved.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 31 Oct 2010 14:16

Singha wrote:er, since the pakis got their initial and perhaps some of current lot of nuclear bombs from china, there is a school of thought that attacking kahuta then and triggering a war would only have served chinese ends because they would kit up the pakis again after the ceasefire. the claims are that kahuta did not produce materials or design for the initial pakistani devices.
......

By the time IAF examined the possibility of attacking kahuta, the reactor was already fueled. Attacking a fueled reactor would lead to fallout - thus the attack would be viewed as a "nuclear strike" -not too different dropping a nuke.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 31 Oct 2010 14:20

Austin,

These welfare programs are OK if we have resources to spare. Right now, everything should be directed towards closing the gap in deterrent/mil. power with chn/pak in the most effective way. A nuke buildup is the cheapest way of doing this and should be priority number one for the state

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2010 18:06

ramdas wrote:Austin,

These welfare programs are OK if we have resources to spare. Right now, everything should be directed towards closing the gap in deterrent/mil. power with chn/pak in the most effective way. A nuke buildup is the cheapest way of doing this and should be priority number one for the state

We have and should spare more resource if required , OK is not good we should spend MORE.

We have credible N-deterrent and thats good enough to deter.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 31 Oct 2010 22:15

Austin,

How do you know our deterrent as of today is credible...upto now, credible agnst tsp. aganist chn ? even agnst tsp, they have a nuke buildup. do we have a similar, if nor greater buildup ? credibility muts be maintained...and this should be priority no. 1. it still leaves us some resources to spend on dev/welfare. The other option of matching tsp+chn conventionally will mean no resources whatsoever for dev. for a very long time..that is ruinous...a credible nuke buildup i,e, hundreds of 200kt thermonukes in a timebound manner is the best option. Now, what does Dr. Santhanam say ? Is credibility there against chn/ tsp+chn rather than tsp alone ?

if there was credible deterrent, why are we talking of 55 squadrons reqd to face a two front war, etc ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2010 22:35

Let me put that question to you then how do you know that the detterent today is not credible and investing more money will certainly make it credible , after all statements from GOI always say we have credible deterrence no ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Oct 2010 23:03

Austin firstly our deterrent is only to ensure that the there is just enough doubt (that's the way we roll you see) in the enemy's mind about our nuclear capability to deter it from pulling the N trigger first, our nuclear doctrine and obviously the road map which the program has taken are actually not effective in the real sense, seriously how many nuclear powers out there get attacked and provoked into a war only to retreat under some ostensible international pressure ? While everyone knows that India will not be the first one to press the trigger no one can say this about any of the P-5 countries (not even the TSP), the only way nuclear deterrence works in this world is when you openly declare the fact that 'if we go down we will take everyone down with us' that is how a nuclear power should approach and fight wars.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 31 Oct 2010 23:12

Info on Pakistan nuclear security:

http://www.partnershipforglobalsecurity ... rkshop.pdf

http://www.pugwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/P ... Khaliq.pdf

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Oct 2010 23:24

ramdas wrote:Austin,

How do you know our deterrent as of today is credible...upto now, credible agnst tsp. aganist chn ? even agnst tsp, they have a nuke buildup. do we have a similar, if nor greater buildup ? credibility muts be maintained...and this should be priority no. 1. it still leaves us some resources to spend on dev/welfare. The other option of matching tsp+chn conventionally will mean no resources whatsoever for dev. for a very long time..that is ruinous...a credible nuke buildup i,e, hundreds of 200kt thermonukes in a timebound manner is the best option. Now, what does Dr. Santhanam say ? Is credibility there against chn/ tsp+chn rather than tsp alone ?

Say, even if we have only one credible nuke, if it can prevent any nuclear aggression from Chinese then our deterrent is credible. Whether you achieve that with one nuke or 100 nukes is your ability. War is a gamble. Leaving all these rhetorical statements, recent news of moving Agni missiles to NE must have passed a strong message to Chinese.

if there was credible deterrent, why are we talking of 55 squadrons reqd to face a two front war, etc ?

Are you not here mixing conventional preparation with nuclear warfare ? When Chinese send fighters to attack, will you reply to that by nuking Chinese cities or simply defend with fighters ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 01 Nov 2010 01:51

Dear Kanson,

(moderators note: this may be off thread. it could therefore, be moved to an appropriate thread)

Indeed deploying A-II in arunachal is a good signal on one hand. Two issues, however, exist. One inextricably links conventional to nuclear conflict when chn is involved (more so in a two frnt situation):

1. The nuke deterrent in the form of A-II deployments may be vulnerable to conv. attack, esp. in a sitn where our conventional inferiority is worse than in 1962. This factor is more pronounced in a two front situation. What if the nukes are in danger or being lost in conv. enemy action ? In other words, a use it or lose it situation ? Our doctrine must make clear that faced with such a situation, or faced with large territorial losses to a conventionally stronger adversary, we would use nukes irrespective of the ensuing repurcussions. This threat, if credibly conveyed, would go a long way in making the other side avoid pushing us into a corner, or trying todisarm us, etc.

2. A-II has had reliability issues in 2009. Of course, the May 17, 2010 test did restore some confidence. More testing is needed. After all, why are Prithvi type missiles tested nearly 50 times, Brahmos 20 times, while we are stingy with tests of the Agni series ?

3. A deterrent that is credible today need not stay so,unless constant efforts are on to improve it qualitatively and, in our case where a small arsenal is involved, quantitatively. that tsp is itself may end up having a larger arsenal means that we must go for a large quantitative upgrade as well. We have stressed too much on minimality of the deterrent. the stress should be on credibility. in general, the more paranoid the state is on these matters, the better.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Nov 2010 09:16

negi wrote:Austin firstly our deterrent is only to ensure that the there is just enough doubt (that's the way we roll you see) in the enemy's mind about our nuclear capability to deter it from pulling the N trigger first, our nuclear doctrine and obviously the road map which the program has taken are actually not effective in the real sense

Negi , we do not know how credible our nuclear deterrent is because we do not have a declared warhead and delivery vehical policy , we do not really know if today we are attcked how many warheads,missile will be available and response time , so we do not know how effective our deterrent is , its all a good mystery like some one said It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; your guess is as good as mine or SPIRI or FAS , ditto goes for Pakistan.

So just hope that if we are attacked and lets hope we are not in the first place because of our deterrent value we can give them a fitting response or atleast the GOI makes us believe that

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Nov 2010 18:01

ramdas wrote:Dear Kanson,

(moderators note: this may be off thread. it could therefore, be moved to an appropriate thread)

Indeed deploying A-II in arunachal is a good signal on one hand. Two issues, however, exist. One inextricably links conventional to nuclear conflict when chn is involved (more so in a two frnt situation):

1. The nuke deterrent in the form of A-II deployments may be vulnerable to conv. attack, esp. in a sitn where our conventional inferiority is worse than in 1962. This factor is more pronounced in a two front situation. What if the nukes are in danger or being lost in conv. enemy action ? In other words, a use it or lose it situation ? Our doctrine must make clear that faced with such a situation, or faced with large territorial losses to a conventionally stronger adversary, we would use nukes irrespective of the ensuing repurcussions. This threat, if credibly conveyed, would go a long way in making the other side avoid pushing us into a corner, or trying todisarm us, etc.

2. A-II has had reliability issues in 2009. Of course, the May 17, 2010 test did restore some confidence. More testing is needed. After all, why are Prithvi type missiles tested nearly 50 times, Brahmos 20 times, while we are stingy with tests of the Agni series ?

3. A deterrent that is credible today need not stay so,unless constant efforts are on to improve it qualitatively and, in our case where a small arsenal is involved, quantitatively. that tsp is itself may end up having a larger arsenal means that we must go for a large quantitative upgrade as well. We have stressed too much on minimality of the deterrent. the stress should be on credibility. in general, the more paranoid the state is on these matters, the better.

Dear Ramdas.....If you like the discussion can be continued in two-front war thread. My reply there.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Nov 2010 17:01

X-post

How Musharraf fooled buffoon Bush

US planned to send spl forces into Pak post 9/11 & 2008: Bush
ET

US came on the verge of marching its special forces into Pakistan to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda safe havens twice, post 9/11 and then again in mid-2008, but the country's rulers each time thwarted the attempt, former President George Bush has revealed. The former military dictator Pervez Musharraf had frustrated him from the move by conjuring up a spectre of a revolt in Pakistan and the possibility of militants taking over the reins of power and the country's nuclear arsenal, Bush said.

Breaking his silence on the tumultuous days after the dreadful 9/11 terror attacks on the US, Bush said that Musharraf and Pakistani Generals had always sought to misled him by saying that it was Indians who were influencing Americans against Pakistan. Pushing himself back into the public eye after a two year hibernation, the former President has come out with these startling new disclosures in his new book which he has titled "Decision Points", where he says that post 9/11 some in the Pakistan Intelligence Services maintained relationship with the Taliban and in fact provided them safe havens.

Bush recalls that as the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run from Afghan capital Kabul, he wanted to send special forces inside Pakistan to take head on these terrorists safe havens, but Musharraf warned him of revolt in the Pak Army in which the extremists could take control of the country including its nuclear arsenal. "He (Musharraf) told me that sending troops into combat in Pakistan would be viewed as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. A revolt would likely ensue. His government would probably fall. The extremists could take over the country including its nuclear arsenal," Bush said adding that in that case he told him that Pak soldiers needed to take the lead and for several years the arrangements worked. In return, the US lifted sanctions and the Congress provided $3 billion in economic aid to Pakistan.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Nov 2010 20:38

Well every time something major happen which gets traced to Pakistan , they will always claim any attack or intrusion in Pakistan will result in coup and the taliban in PA will take over Nuclear Weapons.

So better fund us more and we will find the culprits. Inters ting that Nuclear Weapons can bring such a big leverage to Pakistan that not even US can do any thing about it.

Don · Post by **Don** » 14 Nov 2010 05:18

PAF Shaanxi ZDK-03 AEW&C Roll-out Ceremony Held in China

NOVEMBER 13, 2010 - According to Pakistan Television (PTV) news report, roll-out ceremony of first Shaanxi ZDK-03 Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft designed specifically for Pakistan Air Force (PAF) was held in Hanzhong, Shaanxi, China today (November 13). The ceremony was attended by PAF Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman and other high ranking officers of PAF.

PAF has plans to induct a total of four Shaanxi ZDK-03 AEW&C aircraft in its inventory.

more info on Shaanxi ZDK-03 AEW&C :

Chinese AWACs added to Pakistan’s AEW&C inventory
May 10, 2010 in Pakistan, Uncategorized

Pakistan has received its second Erieye radar-equipped Saab 2000, and will also accept its first Shaanxi ZDK-03 airborne early warning and control system aircraft before year-end.

Islamabad has four ZDK-03s on order, with deliveries due to start later this year, say air force sources. The type is a new variant of the Shaanxi Y8 AEW&C aircraft designed specifically for Pakistan.

The Chinese aircraft is powered by four turboprop engines and has a greater range than offered by the Saab Microwave Systems Erieye, the sources say.

The air force recently received its second Saab 2000 surveillance aircraft, and anticipates that it will receive its remaining two in the second and third quarters of this year. Flight Global. Pakistan to get Chinese AEW&C aircraft this year By Leithen Francis

http://militarystrat.wordpress.com/2010 ... inventory/

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 14 Nov 2010 11:31

If India cannot stop piddly little Sweden from selling the Eyerie to Pak-Is-Satan....a superpower does not make. Anyone think Sweden would dare sell one of that to Taiwan?
Avram

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Nov 2010 12:16

asprinzl wrote:If India cannot stop piddly little Sweden from selling the Eyerie to Pak-Is-Satan....a superpower does not make. Anyone think Sweden would dare sell one of that to Taiwan?
Avram

Avram, India is still not a power like China.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Nov 2010 12:48

SSridhar wrote:
asprinzl wrote:If India cannot stop piddly little Sweden from selling the Eyerie to Pak-Is-Satan....a superpower does not make. Anyone think Sweden would dare sell one of that to Taiwan?
Avram
Avram, India is still not a power like China.

Why single out Sweden. We do weapons business with countries which helped Porkies arm itself to teeth, US, France, Brazil, Ukraine, Italy, UK to name a few.

And we are buying weapons from US these days like they are on garage sale.

We have to talk the talk and walk the walk. We import >60% of our weapons, how can we influence anything?

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 14 Nov 2010 20:25

Folks...I first heard China throw their tantrum way back in the late 70s and it scared the hell out of Holland that made them cancel a military contract with Taiwan. I am sure India's clout and power today is stronger than China of 1978. Do you seriously think Sweden would sell a condom to PakIsSatan if they know it would jeapordize the Gripen's chance in the MRCA deal?
This almost sixty years saga of a day late and dollar short biz India's leaders dwell in has to stop.
Avram

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Nov 2010 22:42

This is right. India has to assert her foreign policy in near region which includes other countries doing defense deals with countries in the region.