Bhai.
3 billion each year for how long? On the one hand we are running to WB & IMF for economic bailout and then you talk of spending 3 billion a year to acquire stuff which may never in its whole life sèe action and will certainly be of no good to the hungry populace. How can you justify this?
Secondly we run a deficit economy.There maybe a 200 billion Rs black economy but the government cannot balance its accounts. There is a huge rich poor divide which is increasing by the day if economists are to be believed and one of the major cause of crimes in the major cities. The army may well act but if people are poor and without jobs crimes will increase.Even if you had 3. Billion where should they go? I for one would be all for increasing our production base and acquiring newer skills and capabilities but spending that much on just Naval acquisition seems preposterous.
Thirdly if you spend 3 billion what happens to all the other developmental project for the other arms of defence. These are all things that need to be thought out. Finally 3 billion per yr for 10 yrs is 30 billion over 5 yrs is 15 billion. Are really proposing that much defence out lay just for the navy. Because if you are Pakistan will end up becoming bankrupt not that we are far away from that in any case.
Araz
Well first of all Pakistan has a $ 5 billion procurement budget per year. For the past 20 years the stuff that was added to the PN new was the F-22P and Attack crafts the rest was given to other forces so that they could be brought up to strength.
Before the Budget 2015-16 it is the right time for PN to find the surplus or underutilized funds for her requirements. There are many ways in which deals can be finalized pay initial and then pay the remaining on installments, these installments may vary with the time or may start upon the delivery hence giving enough time to arrange adequate amounts. Pls go through the Egypt Rafale deal.
Why are we running to the IMF and World Bank for bailout?
I am not the right person to answer this question but with my limited ability can only say that it is a way of saying to the world that we are poor and can not afford to secure the population. The IMF & WB loan is being paid by more loan so it is practically not being used to solve the problem of population.
Deficit Economy
What can one say about it. This is how modern economics work the rich become richer and the poor become poorer far away from what this countries constitution states. The current Debt of USA is increase by the second and bail out has been given though China.
China though a Communist state is able to bail out Capitalist country just because the disparity between the rich and poor is not their.
Though in my personal opinion both Capitalism and Communism are two extremes, there is a much better option that is not too difficult to adopt for Pakistan which is to follow the Islamic way of economics which is much more balanced.
At the end it all ends with what is necessary has to be done even if it kills you.[/QUOTE]
AOA
Procurement budget to my mind does not run this way. For instance do you think that the F16s which we secured from US are paid for. Or the excess of F16s from Jordan or the F22ps or even the bl.2 JFT. Where is the money for that coming from if not from the procurement budget? So the procuremeñt budget is not a static amount of money which is paid off in chunks but utilized to pay for stuff you have bought.
The US situation and its debt is something which is tantamount to bullying of the highest order. The Chinese have bought US bonds worth trillions if not billions to safeguard their own reserves and also other strategic reasons. To compare US or even UK position to that of Pakistan is very naive. Pakistan just does not have the same clout as these countries and will never have . Therefore the Pakistani position would be one of austerity and working within its limits and if it bòrrows, to use money for projects which yield resources or money in turn.
I fully understand the need but you need to understand my point of view in that this money which we are borrowing will have to be paid back with interest (howsoever small) and if your resources are limited then your troubles will compound subsequently. However if you are getting money from S.t elsewhere for services to be rendered it needs the nation to be clear in its mind that these are services which we agree to carry out and we as a nation are prepared to face the consequences whatever they may be and not whine like a bleeting goat about how war on terror has harmed us in so many ways that are worse than if we had decided to not participate. I am using WOT as an example and will not enter into a debate on the subject.
AOA this is probably my last post on the matter. It is clear to me that you and I are looking at the situation from diametrically opposite directions while not actually disagreeing to the need or the utility of the buy itself. I suspect it will be a reiteration of our respected points of view and I hate going round and round in circles. So unless something in your post requires an answer I will respectfully bow out of this debate.
araz
