Pakistan sea limits increase from 200 nm to 350 nm

[Zohaib Irfan]

Congrats Pakistan , hope we will take care of the newly extended area

 

[SABRE]

It seems there still seems to be a lot of confusion over this subject, and clearly someone didn't bring the President of Pakistan to the proper knowledge on the subject prior to his 23rd March speech. Let me just put few points out there that answer some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs):

1. Continental shelf refers to the seabed or the subsoil under the sea or ocean.

2(a). Expansion of this continental shelf grants Pakistan sovereign rights to the seabed under the sea for the purpose of economic exploitation.

• These rights only include exploitation of natural resources which the UNCOLS define as "mineral and other non-living resources" and "living organisms belonging to sedentary species (living organisms that are either immobile or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil).

• Thus, Pakistan has no rights over fishery & even the Indian fishermen can fish in this zone.

3. The waters and air space above this continental shelf are open to international activity.

• Pakistan cannot interfere with the navigation of any ship or aircraft belonging to any nation. Not even India's

4. Any country, including India, would require Pakistan express consent to conduct any activity on the seabed of this expanded zone; which includes laying of cables & pipelines of any sort.

5. NO!!! This has no direct military/naval significance.

For more detailed info here are my previous posts:

Extension of Continental shelf does not mean extension in the maritime boundary & by that virtue the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Continental shelf is the submarine landmass (seabed or subsoil). The sea above remains an 'international water body.' We have gained only the rights to exclusive exploitations of the land under that water.

Fishery too remains outside this purview. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) - body that has granted Pakistan extension of its continental shelf - says the following:

Article 77(1): The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

and then

Article 77(4): The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.

* Hence, the fishery in the granted area remains open to international exploitation.

The Article 78(1) says: The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space above those waters.

2. The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe or result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this Convention.

* Meaning Pakistan has no control over the waters & air space above the given continental shelf.

The Article 79 of the convention addresses the issue of 'Submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf' & I quote:

1. All States are entitled to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf, in accordance with the provisions of this article.

2. Subject to its right to take reasonable measures for the exploration of the continental shelf, the exploitation of its natural resources and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from pipelines, the coastal State may not impede the laying or maintenance of such cables or pipelines.

* Coastal State here is Pakistan.

3. The delineation of the course for the laying of such pipelines on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State.

* Here we get the upper hand. Iran & India would need Pakistan's consent for laying of pipeline. But the pipeline would have to go through Pakistan's waters anyways. Dragging it around Pakistan's waters & previous continental shelf limit would still have been costly & painstaking.

4. Nothing in this Part affects the right of the coastal State to establish conditions for cables or pipelines entering its territory or territorial sea, or its jurisdiction over cables and pipelines constructed or used in connection with the exploration of its continental shelf or exploitation of its resources or the operations of artificial islands, installations and structures under its jurisdiction.

5. When laying submarine cables or pipelines, States shall have due regard to cables or pipelines already in position. In particular, possibilities of repairing existing cables or pipelines shall not be prejudiced.

 

[Viper0011.]

I guess you are all still living in the 20th century.

In time of war, or even a serious threat by India, or in the event of even a single commercial liner being sunk, no commercial shipper will dock in Pak. A de facto blockade.

Pak may get some military supplies through (from China) but in 45 days, your country will be in a economic mess (without war actually occurring).

Grandiosity much???? And you think you'll be celebrating holey and throwing color on each other inside India, as Pakistan happens to be so far away from your borders that nothing could reach India???

Wake up, its 2015, the World's moved on from India the big giant, like the World moved on from Andre the Giant from the Wrestling!!!
The West is more concerned about this region than any other, due to both India and Pakistan being cokoo's when it comes to conflicts and sense of maturity. The nationalist government and people like you, further increase the threat of MAD.
A serious conflict would leave majority of Pakistan crippled and over half the India (specifically the economic zones) disappeared. Both the countries or whatever shiit hole would be left of them, will go back to 1600 when the rest of the world lives in the 21st century. China will be taking over the remainder of India at that time by taking a walk inside the remainder of what used to be India. The West will rebuild its businesses in the Philippines, Vietnam, Brazil, Spain and Mexico!

It seems there still seems to be a lot of confusion over this subject, and clearly someone didn't bring the President of Pakistan to the proper knowledge on the subject prior to his 23rd March speech. Let me just put few points out there that answer some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs):

• Thus, Pakistan has no rights over fishery & even the Indian fishermen can fish in this zone.

3. The waters and air space above this continental shelf are open to international activity.

• Pakistan cannot interfere with the navigation of any ship or aircraft belonging to any nation. Not even India's

4. Any country, including India, would require Pakistan express consent to conduct any activity on the seabed of this expanded zone; which includes laying of cables & pipelines of any sort.

5. NO!!! This has no direct military/naval significance.

I don't know where you read this stuff from or get your understanding. But allow me to give you some "common sense" as you seem to be missing that a lot in here and from your previous posts.

This, immediately, has a huge military benefit to Pakistan. If the PN had more ships, this expansion would provide immediate military advantage. Here's some common sense:

1) When a country's ships are working on projects related to exploration or seabed, etc, that country has ALL the rights to protect these ships. Similar to how the Chinese expanded their navy. In order to protect these exploration projects, your Navy is deployed way ahead of their "Regular" sea line. Which in this case, was little as Pakistan's EEZ was very little and the IN would just be hanging out, right outside of the 150 mile or 200 mile range, which would make water ways going in and out of Pakistan very narrow, and will allow IN aircraft to take a short flight to Karachi, to take out port, and through IN ships, traffic to and from Pakistan's port, would also be hampered seriously.

2) Because of the new expanded area a country's Navy can cover, under the "disguise" of exploration protection (and may be a disguised second strike capability or a missile base on a remote island Pakistan might put its foot on, to support "exploration" activities), the IN then has to adjust and move their most expensive toys and assets away from this area.

Now the new real blockade (if anything as such even exist now), will have to go out between 400-600 miles away from the port, and 100-200 miles away from the perceived "exploration" activity zone, as the IN would never want to lose their AC and most expensive shinny new Kolkata class destroyers.

3) This would limit the range of air-crafts on the AC, would provide Pakistan a first layer of interception way before it's sea line, through SAMS and anti-ship missiles from its ships deployed to escort or protect the exploration area. So it disturbs the entire battle doctrine used by the IN. There is no surprise left.

4) This is how the Chinese built many of their "string of pearls" islands, military bases, etc. Their ships protect exploration activities literally few miles off the sea line of Vietnam and other countries. Which is really a force multiplier in disguise.

5) Because of the expanded role of PN, its ships will actually be very close to Oman and will have more operational radius if it chose to, narrowing down the water passage from Iran / Straight of Homez, for ships coming from the Iranian straight to India, passing this newly created sea zone of Pakistan, to get to India in open waters.

The open waters will not remain that open anymore. The PN, in case of War, can seriously impact the Indian sea traffic going from open waters to India (as the PN, if it gets more ships, would then have some serious presence to protect Pakistan's exploration projects, and will probably have a temporary base or two as well).

In common, layman terms, this is the real strategic depth for your military to avoid any sea based blockade by India. The previous "Strategic Depth" aka, Afghanistan, was really a miscalculation.

Take a look at the map of this change. If common sense doesn't kick in, and denial remains, if I was you, I'd quit writing and go learn a thing or two.

 

[SABRE]

I don't know where you read this stuff from or get your understanding. But allow me to give you some "common sense" as you seem to be missing that a lot in here and from your previous posts.

Allow me to enlighten you in this case then. Unlike you I don't need much common sense here as I have gone beyond it = I have done a course in the London University's Law of the Seas. But above all, I am defence analyst by profession. I have worked with a prestigious military organisation. I am Graduate of Defence & Strategic Studies from QAU & preparing for PhD in UK in this field.

But much of my knowledge and comments in this field come from the text of the convention itself I. Only an idiot cannot apprehend it.

All that you have written is based on some idiotic ignorant belief that somehow Pakistan has gained exclusive control over the sea & air above the given continental shelf, which it has not.

This, immediately, has a huge military benefit to Pakistan. If the PN had more ships, this expansion would provide immediate military advantage. Here's some common sense:

1) When a country's ships are working on projects related to exploration or seabed, etc, that country has ALL the rights to protect these ships. Similar to how the Chinese expanded their navy. In order to protect these exploration projects, your Navy is deployed way ahead of their "Regular" sea line. Which in this case, was little as Pakistan's EEZ was very little and the IN would just be hanging out, right outside of the 150 mile or 200 mile range, which would make water ways going in and out of Pakistan very narrow, and will allow IN aircraft to take a short flight to Karachi, to take out port, and through IN ships, traffic to and from Pakistan's port, would also be hampered seriously.

There is no immediate military benefit.

Pakistan EEZ still is the same as before. Extended continental shelf is not an EEZ as you have no 'exclusivity' to all economic activity there. It only allows you to exploit the seabed or subsoil. Fishery, sea & air traffic are beyond anyone's control here.

No body is stopping PN from traveling into these waters, & it could still do so when the expansion of shelf was not granted. But don't expect them to stop Indian ships from travelling into these waters. The sea & air above is still International waters and air space. Therefore, IN can still hang out 150 to 200 mile range here.

IN or IAF aircraft have much shorter routes available to strike Karachi. Not to forget their ballistic & cruise missiles.

2) Because of the new expanded area a country's Navy can cover, under the "disguise" of exploration protection (and may be a disguised second strike capability or a missile base on a remote island Pakistan might put its foot on, to support "exploration" activities), the IN then has to adjust and move their most expensive toys and assets away from this area.

There is no disguising here. If you can station your warships here then so can India. As I keep saying the convention does not grant Pakistan control over the sea & airspace, they remain international. Indian submarines & P8I ASW aircrafts can travel into these waters anytime they want.

Also do not forget that we have unofficially drawn the map of expanded continental shelf for India as well. Everything East & South East of our new shelf now belongs to India. If you station your warships - which are of limited number & compared to IN would still be small even after we expand our fleet - there, then expect large IN contingent to be around both inside the zone & adjacent waters.

You clearly don't have knowledge about 2nd strike capability. A submarine cannot overtly establish a predetermined course of sail. That would make it a sitting duck. & it needs to operate above-&-beyond its home waters anyway for establishing secrecy of its location & credibility of its strike. So, expansion or not, Pakistan submarines - if/when equipped with nuclear missiles - would opt for unpredictable route.

Now the new real blockade (if anything as such even exist now), will have to go out between 400-600 miles away from the port, and 100-200 miles away from the perceived "exploration" activity zone, as the IN would never want to lose their AC and most expensive shinny new Kolkata class destroyers.

No body was stopping PN from engaging IN in these waters even before the expansion of the continental shelf.

However, IN Western Command can easily avoid this route. They could just travel through the coast of Gujrat, which would be more sensible as it would block Pakistan's own attempt to enter Kandla.

In the end we would just be sitting & waiting here while the Western Command is actually carrying out a blockade of Karachi. But worse of all we would be a sandwich between their Western Command & Southern Command. The port is their's for the taking since you just left our port open by moving away the PN ships further south.

3) This would limit the range of air-crafts on the AC, would provide Pakistan a first layer of interception way before it's sea line, through SAMS and anti-ship missiles from its ships deployed to escort or protect the exploration area. So it disturbs the entire battle doctrine used by the IN. There is no surprise left.

This is not going to limit any range of any aircraft (or ship) belonging to any nation. Pakistan has no rights over the sea or air space above the seabed or subsoil of the zone. IN doesn't need their AC against Pakistan. IAF & Indian ballistic missiles are good enough.

In addition, the ships that you would station in the new zone are still very easily in the reach of IAF jets & ballistic missiles.

4) This is how the Chinese built many of their "string of pearls" islands, military bases, etc. Their ships protect exploration activities literally few miles off the sea line of Vietnam and other countries. Which is really a force multiplier in disguise.

China has never acknowledged the 'strings of pearls' strategy. It only planned & executed the development of ports in the Indian oceans for the ease of trade for their trade ships and for diplomatic influence. PLAN's immediate & long term strategy is still (& for a very ling time will be) focused on the South China Sea & Pacific Ocean, not the Indian Ocean. At the best their warships would make periodic docking on the Indian ocean ports. The whole offensive naval-strategic face to it was given by India just so they could justify their own high spendings on the IN & portray China as an aggressor.

The reason China has been so interested in developing Gwadar is to avoid getting into trouble in the Indian Ocean & doing 24/7 chokidari. Its going to take away their resources from their immediate interests.

5) Because of the expanded role of PN, its ships will actually be very close to Oman and will have more operational radius if it chose to, narrowing down the water passage from Iran / Straight of Homez, for ships coming from the Iranian straight to India, passing this newly created sea zone of Pakistan, to get to India in open waters.

PN already has been operating near Oman in task force. So has been India.

It does not need this new zone to close down the Straight of Hormez. There nearest port is Omara & job could be done from there. But it won't be. We cannot open new fronts with Iran, Qatar & UAE by disrupting their trade. Iran would immediately retaliate & you would have to face two front naval war. Also expect Iranian forces to enter Baluchistan.

The open waters will not remain that open anymore. The PN, in case of War, can seriously impact the Indian sea traffic going from open waters to India (as the PN, if it gets more ships, would then have some serious presence to protect Pakistan's exploration projects, and will probably have a temporary base or two as well).

The open waters WILL remain open. Once again 'the convention does allow you to interfere with any country's traffic.' However, nothing was or is stopping Pakistan from disrupting Indian sea traffic during a war. But there isn't going to be much traffic in the zone during war in the first place. This however pose greater loss to us then India. India has huge coast. It can easily divert its traffic to from West to East to its Southern ports, under the protection of Southern Command, while keeping us busy in our own waters or in this new zone - if you want to take the battle there. Their important trade with East Asia is already covered by the Eastern ports, far away from us. Sure its going to be little costly but unlike us they can actually sustain it.

In common, layman terms, this is the real strategic depth for your military to avoid any sea based blockade by India. The previous "Strategic Depth" aka, Afghanistan, was really a miscalculation.

No, there is no strategic depth here. Not even in layman's term. Even a layman is able to think rationally according Graham Allison. It's just the idiot that does't.

For strategic depth in the seas & oceans you need nuclear powered submarines capable of striking from afar. They are the only real means of Assured 2nd Strike Capability & for stabilising the Balance of Terror to a great extent. Only thing that can actually challenge this capability is mass network of robust, effective, efficient, & fail-proof BMD/ABM system, which is costly & difficult to have for any country let alone India.

But, if & when we acquire nuclear submarines they won't be sitting in this new zone (as ducks) for the reasons I mentioned above. They would aim to incircle India from a greater distance - away from their advance ASW systems.

Take a look at the map of this change. If common sense doesn't kick in, and denial remains, if I was you, I'd quit writing and go learn a thing or two.

Read my first comment. If I were you I would stop writing & go grow up.


---------


Here is another fact to ponder. The convention grants one week period for any country to object on the given approval & if anyone does object then things go back to the drawing board. Had India ever found it of military significance it would have objected to UN approval on day one - in fact on first second of the day one. Think about it, if you can.

 

[SABRE]

@Viper0011.

Something even more to ponder:

UN CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PART VI
CONTINENTAL SHELF
ARTICLE-83
Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV. 3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.


Good luck convincing India to enter into agreement if you are intent on the above.

 

[My-Analogous]

we showed that to pak in 71 and china in 87 ......and what is with personal attack losing argument which actually show your brain power


which is also applicable to pakistan..........small PN will require to operate in larger area in order to find IN vessels
which even PN needed to do irrespective of expanded sea or not ............... the sea area expended in geographical terms not in physical terms...................same way it is same area before which IN needed to petrol ..it does not matter whether it expanded or not because IN will position where it feel fit

in your own logic:a few policemen (PN) can control a smaller crowd in a smaller area, a larger crowd (IN) in a larger geographical area is difficult to manage, even with double the police size (which PN can never have)

and what stopping PN to do that now without expanded area?............who is stopping PN to reach out to more area ? who is stopping PN to have that extra expanded (without legally having it) to area to control in event of war?........please care to let me know

and your are right IN will be from 400 miles (650 km) away .........but from shore line of pakistan not 700 miles (1125 km)


you are just one frustrated man .............................ow all those rhetoric

if your are not pakistani (BTW which i know ) then try to put argument in non-biased way ................the way you show your anti-india hatred here siding with pak is disgusting


yeah off-course i whole heartly believe ...........same can happen to PN also >>>>one small somali boat with an rpg can sabotage a whole oil tanker
^^^^^^^^^^^^

You didn't answer my question and PN never said that they are super duper and it is Indian who made INS a super duper. i repeat my question again that is IN is more advance then USN?

 

[ni8mare]

Beautifully explained ............proof of professionalism........why you have so low post?

Allow me to enlighten you in this case then. Unlike you I don't need much common sense here as I have gone beyond it = I have done a course in the London University's Law of the Seas. But above all, I am defence analyst by profession. I have worked with a prestigious military organisation. I am Graduate of Defence & Strategic Studies from QAU & preparing for PhD in UK in this field.

But much of my knowledge and comments in this field come from the text of the convention itself I. Only an idiot cannot apprehend it.

All that you have written is based on some idiotic ignorant belief that somehow Pakistan has gained exclusive control over the sea & air above the given continental shelf, which it has not.

you do understand @Viper0011. is a bigot and abusive ..............there is no point in wasting time on him he dont even understand very basic of warfare

There is no immediate military benefit.

Pakistan EEZ still is the same as before. Extended continental shelf is not an EEZ as you have no 'exclusivity' to all economic activity there. It only allows you to exploit the seabed or subsoil. Fishery, sea & air traffic are beyond anyone's control here.

No body is stopping PN from traveling into these waters, & it could still do so when the expansion of shelf was not granted. But don't expect them to stop Indian ships from travelling into these waters. The sea & air above is still International waters and air space. Therefore, IN can still hang out 150 to 200 mile range here.

IN or IAF aircraft have much shorter routes available to strike Karachi. Not to forget their ballistic & cruise missiles.



There is no disguising here. If you can station your warships here then so can India. As I keep saying the convention does not grant Pakistan control over the sea & airspace, they remain international. Indian submarines & P8I ASW aircrafts can travel into these waters anytime they want.

Also do not forget that we have unofficially drawn the map of expanded continental shelf for India as well. Everything East & South East of our new shelf now belongs to India. If you station your warships - which are of limited number & compared to IN would still be small even after we expand our fleet - there, then expect large IN contingent to be around both inside the zone & adjacent waters.

You clearly don't have knowledge about 2nd strike capability. A submarine cannot overtly establish a predetermined course of sail. That would make it a sitting duck. & it needs to operate above-&-beyond its home waters anyway for establishing secrecy of its location & credibility of its strike. So, expansion or not, Pakistan submarines - if/when equipped with nuclear missiles - would opt for unpredictable route.



No body was stopping PN from engaging IN in these waters even before the expansion of the continental shelf.

However, IN Western Command can easily avoid this route. They could just travel through the coast of Gujrat, which would be more sensible as it would block Pakistan's own attempt to enter Kandla.

In the end we would just be sitting & waiting here while the Western Command is actually carrying out a blockade of Karachi. But worse of all we would be a sandwich between their Western Command & Southern Command. The port is their's for the taking since you just left our port open by moving away the PN ships further south.



This is not going to limit any range of any aircraft (or ship) belonging to any nation. Pakistan has no rights over the sea or air space above the seabed or subsoil of the zone. IN doesn't need their AC against Pakistan. IAF & Indian ballistic missiles are good enough.

In addition, the ships that you would station in the new zone are still very easily in the reach of IAF jets & ballistic missiles.



China has never acknowledged the 'strings of pearls' strategy. It only planned & executed the development of ports in the Indian oceans for the ease of trade for their trade ships and for diplomatic influence. PLAN's immediate & long term strategy is still (& for a very ling time will be) focused on the South China Sea & Pacific Ocean, not the Indian Ocean. At the best their warships would make periodic docking on the Indian ocean ports. The whole offensive naval-strategic face to it was given by India just so they could justify their own high spendings on the IN & portray China as an aggressor.

The reason China has been so interested in developing Gwadar is to avoid getting into trouble in the Indian Ocean & doing 24/7 chokidari. Its going to take away their resources from their immediate interests.



PN already has been operating near Oman in task force. So has been India.

It does not need this new zone to close down the Straight of Hormez. There nearest port is Omara & job could be done from there. But it won't be. We cannot open new fronts with Iran, Qatar & UAE by disrupting their trade. Iran would immediately retaliate & you would have to face two front naval war. Also expect Iranian forces to enter Baluchistan.



The open waters WILL remain open. Once again 'the convention does allow you to interfere with any country's traffic.' However, nothing was or is stopping Pakistan from disrupting Indian sea traffic during a war. But there isn't going to be much traffic in the zone during war in the first place. This however pose greater loss to us then India. India has huge coast. It can easily divert its traffic to from West to East to its Southern ports, under the protection of Southern Command, while keeping us busy in our own waters or in this new zone - if you want to take the battle there. Their important trade with East Asia is already covered by the Eastern ports, far away from us. Sure its going to be little costly but unlike us they can actually sustain it.



No, there is no strategic depth here. Not even in layman's term. Even a layman is able to think rationally according Graham Allison. It's just the idiot that does't.

For strategic depth in the seas & oceans you need nuclear powered submarines capable of striking from afar. They are the only real means of Assured 2nd Strike Capability & for stabilising the Balance of Terror to a great extent. Only thing that can actually challenge this capability is mass network of robust, effective, efficient, & fail-proof BMD/ABM system, which is costly & difficult to have for any country let alone India.

But, if & when we acquire nuclear submarines they won't be sitting in this new zone (as ducks) for the reasons I mentioned above. They would aim to incircle India from a greater distance - away from their advance ASW systems.



Read my first comment. If I were you I would stop writing & go grow up.


---------


Here is another fact to ponder. The convention grants one week period for any country to object on the given approval & if anyone does object then things go back to the drawing board. Had India ever found it of military significance it would have objected to UN approval on day one - in fact on first second of the day one. Think about it, if you can.

tried to reason with @Viper0011. with same line in my post ........but the idiot will remain idiot only

You didn't answer my question and PN never said that they are super duper and it is Indian who made INS a super duper. i repeat my question again that is IN is more advance then USN?

because there is no point in arguing ..........thats why....

 

[My-Analogous]

Beautifully explained ............proof of professionalism........why you have so low post?

you do understand @Viper0011. is a bigot and abusive ..............there is no point in wasting time on him he dont even understand very basic of warfare



tried to reason with @Viper0011. with same line in my post ........but the idiot will remain idiot only

because there is no point in arguing ..........thats why....

So why you tag me?

 

[Viper0011.]

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV. 3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

Good luck convincing India to enter into agreement if you are intent on the above.

There is no need to good luck anyone. Like I said, Andre-the-Giant and India-the-Giant are both 90's and 2000's stories respectively. No one needs to convince India on anything, nor did India could stop this from happening. Tells you a LOT about their influence (or lack of it). Plus when the conflict starts, you think the UN will be trying to establish these sea lines or save humans going into utter waste between two nut job countries called India and Pakistan?

Grow up,post crap that makes sense, or have a logic. Your posts have become gossip and a waste of time to respond to. You can find another forum designed for dumb and dumbers, and show your poor logical, legal and writing skills on there.

@Viper0011.
Allow me to enlighten you in this case then. Unlike you I don't need much common sense here as I have gone beyond it = I have done a course in the London University's Law of the Seas.

But above all, I am defence analyst by profession. I have worked with a prestigious military organisation. I am Graduate of Defence & Strategic Studies from QAU & preparing for PhD in UK in this field.

But much of my knowledge and comments in this field come from the text of the convention itself I. Only an idiot cannot apprehend it.

The icons above, have ALL the responses I wanted to give to you. Someone said "a picture presents a thousand words"....well there are a lot of pictures above, covering thousands of words.

If you can decode the above icons, I think they should ward you a PHD immediately. Whatever course you did from whatever place in UK, obviously couldn't teach you defense strategy. And the school you mentioned above, isn't by ANY means better than Columbia or Yale law, nuff said!!

Always remember, not everyone on here, comes here because they didn't finish school. There are a lot of very educated and smart people on this forum, from all over the globe!

 

[New World]

Expand the Pakistan Navy..

 

[My-Analogous]

Expand the Pakistan Navy..

It is on table

 

[waz]

All the reason for why the role of the navy is more important than ever. However, shortsightedness, lack of funds etc has led to the force being depleted and hopelessly weak.

I hope this trend is reversed.