Debunking the Myth making machine over ''defense spending''.

[Kompromat]

So i came across a blogpost written by ET's sub editor Faiq Lodhi titled " What good is the Shaheen1A Missile?"

It presents an interesting mix of ignorance, myths, fabricated facts and outright lies about the whole issue regarding defense spending and if or not we should be building schools instead of bombs. I will leave the bit where he goes all morally high over the 'jingoistic, evil nationalists' commenting on facebook with positive torrent of comments which was so heavy that his soul couldn't bear it and he had to write up a blog to let it out. I will go directly to the things in the blog which i believe are not accurate.

• First it needs to be considered that the blogger has a degree in Mass Communications, in other words his knowledge of military sciences is next to zero.
  
  

• As expected, patriots, nationalists, and whatever other jingoistic euphemism we use to explain such kind of people, had congratulated the military for making a machine that has the potential to kill millions in a single stroke.

  
  That is Faiq's genius at work. Once you are surrounded by Nuclear powers who have the capability to wipe you off the face of the earth its only natural to opt for such a capability for self defense. This is a self destructive logic being presented here. No country in the world has the 'right to exist', all countries in the world have the right to 'self defense'. Unless the blogger has a better idea, the only way to deter a nuclear armed enemy is to have nuclear weapons and the credibility of systems i.e Missiles to deliver them.
  
  

• sectors like education, healthcare, employment, industries and what not have suffered for more than 60 years in this country, all because of our unhealthy obsession with a strong defence force.

  
  This is again genius at work which is totally oblivious of historic facts. Pakistan's 'unhealthy' obsession with a stronger defense force is a product of numerous wars and insurgencies which our country has faced in the past 6 decades. Frankly speaking if we didn't have a strong military we most likely would've been like Somalia today. Lastly the blogger is implying that govt mismanagement, corruption, swiss bank accounts, nepotism and loss making national institutions like PIA simply are not to blame for the lack of funds available for social causes.
  
  

• We are polio-affected, drought-stricken, poverty-ridden, terrorism-infused, illiterate people and many of us do not even have the means to have three square meals a day. People are targeted because of their sects and ethnicities, not a day passes by without a Pakistani’s blood being spilt and yet terrorist outfits roam freely amongst us, killing us bit by bit.

  
  Nothing of which is technically the problem of the military yet the defense forces are always found at the forefront of natural disasters, protecting polio teams and not to forget fighting terrorism at a cost of thousands of soldiers killed and maimed in action. I fail to understand this 'impenetrable logic'.
  
  

• In such a country, how can anyone with a sane mind support the fact that 28.2% of the entire budget is allocated to the military while all other sectors share their bits from the remaining budget?

  
  Simply bogus. Pakistan's Defense budget in FY 2014 is 16.70% in consistent with the regional average of the percentage of GDP spent on Defense not 28.2% as claimed.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Putting aside the fact that such a huge amount is invested in a sector that does not even contribute to the country’s GDP, does this not bring into question our own priorities as a country?

  
  This is again a narrative born out of sheer ignorance. Anyone with basic understanding of economics is able to work out, if or not the products built at organizations like PAC, HIT, NESCOM, POF, GIDS, PINSTECH, KRL etc contribute to the NGDP or not. When the budget is spent inside the country it creates jobs and a consumer market of its own. The organizations stated above put together employ thousands of highly skilled workers who otherwise would be seen mopping floors in Saudi Arabia. Not to forget that Pakistan's military industrial complex is a multi million dollar exporter of weapon systems. It is the largest profit making military industrial complex in South Asia in terms of net foreign sales. Compare that to the institutions like PIA, Railway, PS etc and things get clear.
  
  

• The money that should be used to redesign effective curriculums and build better schools, provide affordable medicines, free healthcare and better hospitals, putting up industries to generate employment, supporting businesses to help strengthen the economy, aid local law enforcement agencies (like the police) and provide them with better salaries – that money is instead being used to fight ‘the enemy’.

  
  That is the job of the Govt to provide enough funds for such projects not that of the military nor it is linked with the defense budget.
  
  

  Or is it the ‘(add your favourite foreign intelligence agency) agents’ who go around doing nasty things in our secluded provinces? - Which ones are we actually being protected from?

  
  Coming from someone who's totally ignorant of the age of fourth generation warfare, state subversion and foreign interference and its counters -- this comment is totally warranted because its based in ignorance. If he is trying to say that people like Rymond Davis and Sarabajit Singh and hundreds of Mossad informants and agents we've chased out of the country among hundreds of other cases, were here to distribute cookies to Pakistani people then i can only laugh at this mindset.
  
  

• We tend to mimic India in terms of our defence.

  
  We don't. India's defense budget is aimed at military power projection capabilities with an offensive doctrine, while Pakistan's defense budget is aimed at a defensive doctrine. India has the highest number of poor and enslaved people in the entire world yet it spends $38.50 Billion dollars while Pakistan spends around $7 Billion dollars.
  
  

  If India makes a nuclear bomb, we’ll try to make a bigger one.

  
  We don't. Pakistan and India are working in a similar nuclear yield capacity. Both states have identical numbers of warheads, so i don't see the fuss here.
  
  

  If India talks to the US for F-16 fighter jets, we’ll ask the US for F-16 fighter jets.

  
  India is not seeking F-16s and we have had them since the 80s. So who was ranting about access to internet and search engines?. Plus Pakistan is making three aircrafts i.e Mushak, and Super Mushak which have been exported to half a dozen countries, K-8 Trainer and JF-17 Thunder as well as dozens of UAVs like Shahpar and Burraq, all built inside Pakistan while India is a net importer of aircrafts and UAVs.
  
  

  If India has a high military budget, we’ll have a higher military budget

  
  Defense budget mainly is increased due to inflation, fall of currency against the dollar and the fact that military operations like the ones carried out in Swat, South Waziristan or North Waziristan are not cheap exercise.
  
  

  But when India works towards making its economy more stable, why don’t we mimic that?

  
  India is many times larger, if you divide its GDP by Pakistan's population size, you will have Pakistan's GDP. In other words we are doing better than India in certain economic parameters. Lastly its the job of the govt not the military.
  
  

• I do understand there may be an imminent threat to our nation from outside forces and the military is tackling all this; what I don’t understand is why this has to be done at the expense of other sectors. Who decides that the job of those in the military is more important than those working in schools, hospitals or agriculture? These sectors too are doing their jobs; so why the discrimination?

  
  There is no so called discrimination. Military works within its own allocation, so should other sectors. Pakistan's big state owned enterprises make more annual loses than the entire defense budget. Who is responsible for that?
  
  

• While we do have our powerful army protecting us, is it absolutely necessary to have such an extravagant military budget? There are 14 countries in the world that do not even have a military force, and they are still very much present on the map of the world. I am not advocating that we have no military, but I do not see how a moderate budget for a well-trained military force will affect its working.

  
  On the contrary - Pakistan's military budget is the lowest in the region. ‘Pakistan’s defence spending lowest in region’ - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
  
  

• However, being a nuclear power won’t save us from the forces that are destroying this country from within. Those forces have no body or physical form. But they are just as dangerous. And in order to tackle them, the Shaheen1A Missile will not come in handy.

  
  Shaheen-1A is not meant for insurgents, what kind of an idiot would even think up something like that?
  
  
• The missile is meant to maintain Pakistan's policy of minimum credible deterrence which has sustained peace in our region for decades. For sustaining peace we need to be able to have the capability to strike the enemy and that is only possible when our missiles are survivable in the face of enemy air defenses. This is the capability Shaheen-1A or Shaheen-II provide us.
  
  
  
• Dr Farrukh who is an authority over defense and strategic affairs has written an article specifically to educate the oxymorons and myths that fly in our media about this subject.
  
  
  
• ET Link >| What good is the Shaheen1A Missile? – The Express Tribune Blog
  
  Best Regards - Horus

 

[Nova2]

India is 6 times larger, if you divide its GDP by 6 you will have Pakistan's GDP.

Incorrect.Let's just divide it,
Pakistans Gdp - $232 bill
India Gdp - $1876 bill

*1876/6= $312 bill (difference between Pakistans economy and that of India's when divided by 6 times is $80 bill)
$80 bill is 34% of Pakistan's economy.

 

[senses]

Bravo! I am amazed on how all the heathens on tribune.pk are blindly praising faiq lodhi for his so called brilliancy.

 

[gangsta_rap]

These stupid little lies made by pseudo-liberals are getting old. But then again such people live to spread the BS around.

Unhealthy obsession? This guy should've been thrown into FATA alone. Let's see if he still thinks that "Unhealthy obsession" is really bad for us.

 

[Kompromat]

Incorrect.Let's just divide it,
Pakistans Gdp - $232 bill
India Gdp - $1876 bill

*1876/6= $312 bill (difference between Pakistans economy and that of India's when divided by 6 times is $80 bill)
$80 bill is 34% of Pakistan's economy.

I was being conservative with size comparison. India's population is 1.252 billion, which is more than 10X Pakistan's population. Pakistan and India have identical per capita incomes and an average Pakistani fares better than an average Indian though slightly.

Anyway this is not the subject of this particular debate. Thanks for your input

 

[janon]

I was being conservative with size comparison. India's population is 1.252 billion, which is more than 10X Pakistan's population.

That's wrong. The ratio is less than 7.

Pakistan and India have identical per capita incomes.

Wrong again - India's is slightly higher, and increasing faster.

an average Pakistani fares better than an average Indian though slightly.

Clearly not, looking at average income, per capita GDP, HDI, access to health and education, or any important parameter for well being.

We don't. India's defense budget is aimed at military power projection capabilities with an offensive doctrine, while Pakistan's defense budget is aimed at a defensive doctrine. India has the highest number of poor and enslaved people in the entire world yet it spends $38.50 Billion dollars while Pakistan spends around $7 Billion dollars.

The percentage of enslaved people in India and Pak are almost the same, with India having 0.1% more than Pak, as was reported recently.

India has the largest number of poor, because it has the largest number of people (barring China). India also has far more rich people than Pak, for the same reason.

Compare the defence spending as a percentage of GDP to know who spends more. While you are at it, do check out the percentage of defence spending to total govt spending as outlined in the budget. That will tell you a story.

 

[Kompromat]

That's wrong. The ratio is less than 7.


Wrong again - India's is slightly higher, and increasing faster.



Clearly not, looking at average income, per capita GDP, HDI, access to health and education, or any important parameter for well being.



The percentage of enslaved people in India and Pak are almost the same, with India having 0.1% more than Pak, as was reported recently.

India has the largest number of poor, because it has the largest number of people (barring China). India also has far more rich people than Pak, for the same reason.

Compare the defence spending as a percentage of GDP to know who spends more. While you are at it, do check out the percentage of defence spending to total govt spending as outlined in the budget. That will tell you a story.

Take it to some other thread, i will reply.

 

[janon]

Take it to some other thread, i will reply.

Fair enough, but in that case I suggest that you remove the bits about India from your first post - that's naturally an invitation to Indians to respond. If you want the thread to be only about Pak, make the OP only about Pak.

 

[Kompromat]

Fair enough, but in that case I suggest that you remove the bits about India from your first post - that's naturally an invitation to Indians to respond. If you want the thread to be only about Pak, make the OP only about Pak.

No. The blogger added references to India so i had to address it.

 

[janon]

No. The blogger added references to India so i had to address it.

True, but in that case you ought to let us respond to your comments regarding India as well, don't you think?

I don't want to do a measuring contest either, but since you have made so many statements about India that Indians would regard as misleading, at least let us clear the air regarding those statements.

 

[OrionHunter]

• However, being a nuclear power won’t save us from the forces that are destroying this country from within. Those forces have no body or physical form. But they are just as dangerous. And in order to tackle them, the Shaheen1A Missile will not come in handy.

Shaheen-1A is not meant for insurgents, what kind of an idiot would even think up something like that?

Well said! The author Faiq Lodhi is an armchair 'strategist' who earns a living by spewing crap and gets away with it since the sheeple who read his rubbish know squat about affairs military, and swallow it hook, line and sinker!!

 

[Kompromat]

True, but in that case you ought to let us respond to your comments regarding India as well, don't you think?

I don't want to do a measuring contest either, but since you have made so many statements about India that Indians would regard as misleading, at least let us clear the air regarding those statements.

On topic sure.

Well said! The author Faiq Lodhi is an armchair 'strategist' who earns a living by spewing crap and gets away with it since the sheeple who read his rubbish know squat about affairs military, and swallow it hook, line and sinker!!

Yea unless you want to fire Ghaznavis on Waziristan - Idiot!

 

[Levina]

We don't. Pakistan and India are working in a similar nuclear yield capacity. Both states have identical numbers of warheads, so i don't see the fuss here.

The guy is right.
Lets take the example of how Pakistan names its missiles like Ghauri which was was first named Hataf-V, later the name was changed to Ghauri because someone thought the Indian short-range ballistic missiles Prithvi was named after Prithvi Raj Chauhan, when the reality was we named it after the 5 elements prithvi,vayu,agni etc.

We don't. India's defense budget is aimed at military power projection capabilities with an offensive doctrine, while Pakistan's defense budget is aimed at a defensive doctrine.

Ignoratio elenchi!!

• Let me remind you that we have a "no first use policy" when it comes to nuclear arsenal.But Pakistan has been vague, Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically.
• wasn't it the Pakistani tribesmen and militants who made it to Baramulla sector and ran amok?Kashmir (region, Indian subcontinent) :: The Kashmir problem -- Encyclopedia Britannica
• Or lets take Kargil, by a Pakistani officer 's confession (Capt.Sambal,8 Northern light Infantry) even the highest ranking officers of PA were aware of the infiltration.

And then you came up with your own version of Sunderji doctrine

According to sunderji doctrine USSR and India were secretly planning to attack Pakistan

Come again - Indira Gandhi planned a mass invasion of Pakistan | CIA Records

which was later debunked here..
Indian Army News & Discussions | Page 84

I dont mind you debunking shibboleth's theories on Pakistan's defence budget but pls dont come up with statements which 've blunders of gargantuan proportions blaming things on India..If India aimed at revanchism then it would not 've maintained its stance that LOC should be made IB.

Neither is that blogger entirely wrong and nor are you completely right.

 

[Kompromat]

The guy is right.
Lets take the example of how Pakistan names its missiles like Ghauri which was was first named Hataf-V, later the name was changed to Ghauri because someone thought the Indian short-range ballistic missiles Prithvi was named after Prithvi Raj Chauhan, when the reality was we named after the 5 elements prithvi,vayu,agni etc.

All Pakistani missiles are called Hatf - XXX - The nickname is given to make it look unique.

• Let me remind you that we have a "no first use policy" when it comes to nuclear arsenal.But Pakistan has been vague, Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically.
• wasn't it the Pakistani tribesmen and militants who made it to Baramulla sector and ran amok?Kashmir (region, Indian subcontinent) :: The Kashmir problem -- Encyclopedia Britannica
• Or lets take Kargil, by a Pakistani officer 's confession (Capt.Sambal,8 Northern light Infantry) even the highest ranking officers of PA were aware of the infiltration.

I am talking about a conventional war. Pakistan's doctrine of warfare is not offensive but defensive under the theory of 'active effective deterrence', while India's past doctrines and the present one are inherently aimed at power projection which is an offensive doctrine.

And then you came up with your own version of Sunderji doctrine

which was later debunked here..Indian Army News & Discussions | Page 84

I dont mind you debunking shibboleth's theories on Pakistan's defence budget but pls dont come up with stories with blunders of gargantuan proportions blaming things on India..If India aimed at revanchism then it would not 've maintained it stance that LOC should be made IB.

Neither is that blogger entirely wrong and nor are you completely right.

Sundarji Doctrine was exactly what i described unless you want to define specifics. The Op Brasstacks is also a reflection of India's past offensive doctrines. The Op Parakram was also a manifestation of India's offensive doctrine so was India's decision to escalate 1965 war by invading Lahore then later East Pakistan. Please don't waste my time unless you have something i haven't read already.

 

[Nova2]

I was being conservative with size comparison. India's population is 1.252 billion, which is more than 10X Pakistan's population.

Incorrect ,it is 6.2 X of Pakistan's. Even you know your population isn't 125mill to be 10X smaller to India's.

Pakistan and India have identical per capita incomes

Incorrect, difference is $235,which accounts for 18% of Pakistan's percapita.

and an average Pakistani fares better than an average Indian though slightly.

Debatable.

Anyway this is not the subject of this particular debate. Thanks for your input

To some extent it is as it is mentioned by you in your first post. Was just trying to correct you were you were wrong.