What's new

US Approves Possible Sale Of F-16 Equipment To Pakistan: Pentagon

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
6,522
90
26,631
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Sell/compromise Nukes through F-16s ?
tbh I was just thinking of saying "yes" to U.S. requests, but not asking for anything besides personal benefits (e.g., green cards). My point is that I have no confidence in the ability or willingness of our leaders to pursue the national interest, even in a comprised way. We could simply be dealing with leaders who, frankly, don't care about Pakistan at all, but only themselves individually.

In the past, our rulers -- e.g., Ayub Khan, ZAB, Zia ul-Haq, Benazir and Musharraf -- would at least try to ensure that Pakistan's ability to fight India goes up via Western support. So, even if they make really controversial decisions about Afghanistan or whatever, it always seemed that there was a red line that wouldn't be crossed. These days, I'm not sure there's such a line.
 

One_Nation

FULL MEMBER
Sep 3, 2021
765
-2
573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Hi,

Well---look at the geography of Punjab---. Every conqueror going into the sub continent had to go thru Punjab and on rare occasions thru sindh---.

With no natural barriers and hiding places--Punjabis had to endure more sufferings that most other nation put together.

City of Multan is over 5000 years old---. No other city has been placed geographically in a place where poor warrior nation on one side and rich sub continent on the other side.

Every conquerer coming from AFG had to conquer this city.

there comes a time in life of generations where death before dishonor does not mean much & personal survival becomes paramount---. That makes one suck hard and deep.
This level of submissiveness is in no way an act of survival.

If Punjab went through so many invasions they should have become smarter and evolved into a stronger nation. This is not happening. Punjab dominated establishment is corrupt, lacks sense of direction and lacks moral authority to rule the country. This is why we have so much anarchy in Pakistan.

They are not learning from their brutal past.

tbh I was just thinking of saying "yes" to U.S. requests, but not asking for anything besides personal benefits (e.g., green cards). My point is that I have no confidence in the ability or willingness of our leaders to pursue the national interest, even in a comprised way. We could simply be dealing with leaders who, frankly, don't care about Pakistan at all, but only themselves individually.

In the past, our rulers -- e.g., Ayub Khan, ZAB, Zia ul-Haq, Benazir and Musharraf -- would at least try to ensure that Pakistan's ability to fight India goes up via Western support. So, even if they make really controversial decisions about Afghanistan or whatever, it always seemed that there was a red line that wouldn't be crossed. These days, I'm not sure there's such a line.
100%.

The state of Pakistan today is like a headless chicken with no sense of direction.
No one, not even Pakistanis, know what the state stands for, what are their goals, what is their ideology, do they even want Pakistan to survive?
No one can even tell without resorting to lies why we exist as a nation.
 
Last edited:

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
20,444
163
56,654
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
This level of submissiveness is in no way an act of survival.

If Punjab went through so many invasions they should have become smarter and evolved into a stronger nation. This is not happening. Punjab dominated establishment is corrupt, lacks sense of direction and lacks moral authority to rule the country. This is why we have so much anarchy in Pakistan.

They are not learning from their brutal past.
Hi,

That only happens with people living in mountanous areas----because they can run away and hide---.

Examples are in front of you but you cannot see.

Iraq a flatland---with so much weaponry got demolished by the americans---.

OTOH the afghans---had nothing---but high mountains to hide in---we all know the story.

Just because one has eyes to see---does not mean they have vision to see what is projecting in front of their eyes.
 

Sinnerman108

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 20, 2009
8,338
-7
9,282
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,


It is a requirement in the USA after 9/11---. Any and every aircraft flying in the USA skies will have an electronic device that can manipulate the flight of the aircraft when needed.

Now as for what you are stating---I am not familiar with that part and I did not comment on that either---.

Its since before 9/11
much much before,
Congress wont even listen to a sale proposal, unless the manufacturer complies and ensures the weapon system cannot be used against american interests.
 

One_Nation

FULL MEMBER
Sep 3, 2021
765
-2
573
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Hi,

That only happens with people living in mountanous areas----because they can run away and hide---.

Examples are in front of you but you cannot see.

Iraq a flatland---with so much weaponry got demolished by the americans---.

OTOH the afghans---had nothing---but high mountains to hide in---we all know the story.

Just because one has eyes to see---does not mean they have vision to see what is projecting in front of their eyes.
I don't get how your reply is related to what I said. I know you will say I don't have a vision but your vision is far off.
 

Conqueror

FULL MEMBER
Dec 15, 2009
373
1
423
22 pages of posts, and I still can’t come to a conclusion whether the PAF F16s come with kill switches or not?

Anyone who tells you "yes" or "no" is equally incorrect. Reason? There's no proof to back it up. However, you have two choices here: you can suspect America or you can trust America. Knowing the history you have with them, which one would you pick?

But to support your thinking, you can possibly ask even simpler questions first, e.g., can there be a kill-switch which turns the radar off mid-flight? It's a question of "can there be one" instead of "is there one installed". Another simpler question is: can there be a kill-switch in the engines that prevents the F-16s from crossing into China? When you look at the possibility, you know the possibility exists—and then you ask, "Is there a reason why they should use this possibility?" The answer is yes, unfortunately.

But do you know how many trackers you have on your phone, a device you paid for and use under their terms of service? Does that give you a clue? Do you think every single AMRAAM you have in your inventory will be trackable? If AMRAAMs are trackable, then do you think F-16s can also be trackable? Again, these are questions of possibility instead of the existence of kill switches.

And finally, even though there can be kill switches, it's in the best interest of the USA to not reveal/use them. I think we all know why.
 

Genghis khan1

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2015
5,098
0
6,794
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
PAF is supposedly trying to maintain on having two OEMs (US or else and China) at least, one pilot mentioned by rumour that the seniors do not want to solely rely on China entirely, as the Chinese have also stated hidden demands from them.
Same with Missile technology. Chinese companies ask for Top dollars for sharing specific technology or parts. Which Pakistan can’t afford, for that reason for the most part Pakistani engineering develop their own technology or try to get it from cheaper source like N. Korea.
 

Conqueror

FULL MEMBER
Dec 15, 2009
373
1
423
@Signalian, @Quwa, @arz, @MastanKhan, and the respected members, I have a point to raise with you.

I believe the US has grossly underestimated Pakistan's pain in holding their hand, as well as the number of bridges it has had to burn in order to maintain ties with them. At the same time, Americans have no idea how many steps they must have taken towards Pakistan in order to create a cost-benefit narrative that would persuade Pakistan to continue supporting their interests in this region.

Pakistan's hasty approach to the US, and the losses it has suffered as a result, are far greater than anything America could ever compensate for through military aid or financial relief. American interests in this region are based on the "uphold India" policy, and they will never support Pakistan if it harms India, which is their best ally in this region against China.

The difficult part now is that Pakistan clearly lacks the capacity to make such strategic decisions. The "cost of supporting America" and the "benefits to Pakistan" have been grossly overestimated. Pakistan has done more than it can afford, and the US has no idea how much Pakistan is suffering and how much compensation is required to maintain equality. But the next strategic question is whether the US wants to compensate Pakistan for complying with its wishes, especially since Pakistan's strength will be India's challenge.

This 600 million dollar defence deal is not the benefit Pakistan expected or desired. Perhaps there are other deals going on behind the scenes, or perhaps there aren't - but Pakistan has clearly suffered in this process. You can't help but wonder, in addition to money, what else you had to pay to earn them, and whether you can repeat the process - and whether the gain is worth the pain your country endured.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
20,444
163
56,654
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@Signalian, @Quwa, @arz, @MastanKhan, and the respected members, I have a point to raise with you.

I believe the US has grossly underestimated Pakistan's pain in holding their hand, as well as the number of bridges it has had to burn in order to maintain ties with them. At the same time, Americans have no idea how many steps they must have taken towards Pakistan in order to create a cost-benefit narrative that would persuade Pakistan to continue supporting their interests in this region.

Pakistan's hasty approach to the US, and the losses it has suffered as a result, are far greater than anything America could ever compensate for through military aid or financial relief. American interests in this region are based on the "uphold India" policy, and they will never support Pakistan if it harms India, which is their best ally in this region against China.

The difficult part now is that Pakistan clearly lacks the capacity to make such strategic decisions. The "cost of supporting America" and the "benefits to Pakistan" have been grossly overestimated. Pakistan has done more than it can afford, and the US has no idea how much Pakistan is suffering and how much compensation is required to maintain equality. But the next strategic question is whether the US wants to compensate Pakistan for complying with its wishes, especially since Pakistan's strength will be India's challenge.

This 600 million dollar defence deal is not the benefit Pakistan expected or desired. Perhaps there are other deals going on behind the scenes, or perhaps there aren't - but Pakistan has clearly suffered in this process. You can't help but wonder, in addition to money, what else you had to pay to earn them, and whether you can repeat the process - and whether the gain is worth the pain your country endured.
Hi,.

The americans believe that if you are in pain during a relationship with them---then speak up and speak up loud.

Rectify the situation then---but don't cry afterwards---.

Not getting the BENEFITS is purely the fault of the Pakistani Public, its Intellectuals, its politicians but not the military.

Pak military knew its weakness---understood its shortcoming and agreed to the demands.

It was then upto the public, intellectuals, politicians to take the lead and empty the US pockets out.

The Afghans did that right in front of you---. Got over a trillion dollars in their pockets then ran out of the country---.

The time it took the paqkistanis to acknowledge that the terrorists are terrorists and not their Islamic Bhai---things had gone from bad to worse to worst---.

at the end of the day---the pakistani public failed their nation.

Where they stand today---it is their own doing---.
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
8,673
258
22,497
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
@Signalian, @Quwa, @arz, @MastanKhan, and the respected members, I have a point to raise with you.

I believe the US has grossly underestimated Pakistan's pain in holding their hand, as well as the number of bridges it has had to burn in order to maintain ties with them. At the same time, Americans have no idea how many steps they must have taken towards Pakistan in order to create a cost-benefit narrative that would persuade Pakistan to continue supporting their interests in this region.

Pakistan's hasty approach to the US, and the losses it has suffered as a result, are far greater than anything America could ever compensate for through military aid or financial relief. American interests in this region are based on the "uphold India" policy, and they will never support Pakistan if it harms India, which is their best ally in this region against China.

The difficult part now is that Pakistan clearly lacks the capacity to make such strategic decisions. The "cost of supporting America" and the "benefits to Pakistan" have been grossly overestimated. Pakistan has done more than it can afford, and the US has no idea how much Pakistan is suffering and how much compensation is required to maintain equality. But the next strategic question is whether the US wants to compensate Pakistan for complying with its wishes, especially since Pakistan's strength will be India's challenge.

This 600 million dollar defence deal is not the benefit Pakistan expected or desired. Perhaps there are other deals going on behind the scenes, or perhaps there aren't - but Pakistan has clearly suffered in this process. You can't help but wonder, in addition to money, what else you had to pay to earn them, and whether you can repeat the process - and whether the gain is worth the pain your country endured.
USA relations with Pakistan are not just based on F-16s. Both countries go their own way when their interests don’t match and both try to deceive each other. Pakistan and PAF agreed to suffer in 90’s w.r.t F-16s and continued the ambition for nuclear technology and tests. Then Pakistan refused to pay for new F-16s from own pocket. According to agreement, USA techs are stationed at PAF F-16 bases.

If the narrative suits that PAF, military and GOP are eating money through deals then stick to it.
To each his own really.

I would say then that PAF and military commanders are certainly another breed since they eat and maintain the C&C as an efficient system simultaneously. The civil system eats and it’s failure is evident in all departments mired with politics and unstoppable corruption.
 

Ghessan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2018
1,583
0
1,940
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,.

The americans believe that if you are in pain during a relationship with them---then speak up and speak up loud.

Rectify the situation then---but don't cry afterwards---.

Not getting the BENEFITS is purely the fault of the Pakistani Public, its Intellectuals, its politicians but not the military.

Pak military knew its weakness---understood its shortcoming and agreed to the demands.

It was then upto the public, intellectuals, politicians to take the lead and empty the US pockets out.

The Afghans did that right in front of you---. Got over a trillion dollars in their pockets then ran out of the country---.

The time it took the paqkistanis to acknowledge that the terrorists are terrorists and not their Islamic Bhai---things had gone from bad to worse to worst---.

at the end of the day---the pakistani public failed their nation.

Where they stand today---it is their own doing---.
this bad habit we have is that we don't talk at the time it is to be and later try to minimize those benefits extended by denying cooperation in an indecent way which irritates.
must come strong at the time of negotiations but we have US who knows they can influence us falling short of our demands or not concluding deal wisely.
nobody extend a hand until it is demanded from the opponent.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom