Stronger Pakistan means Stable India

[Paksanity]

History books are written by scholars having different views therefore present days history books of our two nations may differ. That could be the reason of your terming our understanding of our history as our insecurity. BTW googling independent sources may come handy to clear some confusions.

On Topic : Pakistan is a sovereign Nation and has every right to arm itself with any weapons conventional or otherwise as it may desire according to its threat perception.

Forget history. Let's talk science. Show me an ancient Hindu temple in Pakistan which is thousands of years old. Or show me a scientific evidence of anything Hindu from 8000 years back.

 

[cloud4000]

Grow up and think bigger and broader.
Now regarding point scoring.
Modi comes into Government and announces that we will isolate Pakistan and will only talk on terrorism and not kashmir, two years after this india not Pakistan annuonces that we are gonna resume dialogue with Pakistan including kashmir and after a month modi after coming to his senses comes to Pakistan without a proper formal invitation and arrives in Pakistan.

So the points table position now is Pakistan 1 India 0

I was thinking globally. But if you think Modi impromptu visit is some victory, so be it. If you think India resuming talks with Pakistan is some victory, so be it. Is this all Pakistan can expect from India, these small victories?

 

[MilSpec]

It is matter of great concern, that india is trying to control the foreign policy of independent states like US. At the same time it is dangerous for the stability of entire region. Indian lobbies continuously opposed sale of F-16s to Pakistan and they are worried that why US is selling F-16s to the country in a troubled relationship with india. However they failed to understand that how development of conventional capabilities of Pakistan is infact blessing for india as well?

A protest is not an attempt to control a third party, it's just a civilised atempt of making your case to a entity which claims to be natural ally. And as you are stating F16's sale is to develop conventional capabilities, you are contradicting the US's own version of intended application.

Strong conventional war fighting capabilities of Pakistan and stable Pakistan is good for the stability of entire region. Peace is directly proportional with the stability and stability depends upon capacities and capabilities. Development of conventional war fighting capability and Nuclear threshold is interdependent on each other. Development of conventional strength of Pakistan will increse the nuclear threshold. Good for the india. I don't know why indian leaders can't understand that improvement in conventional capabilities of Pakistan is blessing for them.

Two Flaws in the statement. First, You yourself are contradicting US's logic of Military aid as you confess this transfer is to bolster Pakistan military strength against India.
Second, development of conventional strength will increase nuclear threshold, then by applying the same logic, what kind of conventional strength would it take for Pakistan to completely denuclearize. There are no metrics measurable to a first use nuclear threshold, as your threshold is neither defined nor measurable.
India is just doing it's diligence by opposing military aid which will most likely will be used against India.

Pakistan is facing multidimensional threats of terrorism from inside and outside its boundaries.

But preceding paragraphs, show the intent of building conventional capabilities and not dealing threats of terrorism, and I can't recall when Aim 120C5's were used against terrorists?

In past few years 60,000 people sacrificed thier lives in Pakistan to build progressive and stable neighbour for India.

ABSOLUTELY disingenuous, If you are claiming 60,000 lives sacrificed, you are backing the 30000 odd terrorists who lost their lives. Are you now officially backing them as a loss of the Pakistani State? With this 60,000 number you are overstating the civilian lives by almost 100%.

To our surprise there are many confirm and unconfirmed reports about direct involvement of so called neighbour in this bloodshed. Now they are trying to resist capacity building of Pakistan against non state actors. Afterall no one wants to see dying thier assets with greater precision and it is thier last effort to save TTP from the precision strike capability of new F-16s

Let us know when you make up your mind for intended prime use of these F16's provided as military aid, wether they are to build conventional capability against India, or to provide air support in WoT. and then base your justification. If you choose the middle ground of dual purpose, then we are just doing our due diligence. US arming Pakistan against India is not a new phenomenon, and we take due note of it.

Stability of any country is it's own interest. In is detrimental to India, to ensure protection of it's interests like stability, security and development in any sphere is not dependent on any third party.

 

[Neutron]

India is not safe until last one of draws breath.

Note my point as a diplomatic narrative to draw the dividends at diplomatic front

 

[Paksanity]

A protest is not an attempt to control a third party, it's just a civilised atempt of making your case to a entity which claims to be natural ally. And as you are stating F16's sale is to develop conventional capabilities, you are contradicting the US's own version of intended application.




Two Flaws in the statement. First, You yourself are contradicting US's logic of Military aid as you confess this transfer is to bolster Pakistan military strength against India.
Second, development of conventional strength will increase nuclear threshold, then by applying the same logic, what kind of conventional strength would it take for Pakistan to completely denuclearize. There are no metrics measurable to a first use nuclear threshold, as your threshold is neither defined nor measurable.
India is just doing it's diligence by opposing military aid which will most likely will be used against India.




But preceding paragraphs, show the intent of building conventional capabilities and not dealing threats of terrorism, and I can't recall when Aim 120C5's were used against terrorists?



ABSOLUTELY disingenuous, If you are claiming 60,000 lives sacrificed, you are backing the 30000 odd terrorists who lost their lives. Are you now officially backing them as a loss of the Pakistani State? With this 60,000 number you are overstating the civilian lives by almost 100%.




Let us know when you make up your mind for intended prime use of these F16's provided as military aid, wether they are to build conventional capability against India, or to provide air support in WoT. and then base your justification. If you choose the middle ground of dual purpose, then we are just doing our due diligence. US arming Pakistan against India is not a new phenomenon, and we take due note of it.

Stability of any country is it's own interest. In is detrimental to India, to ensure protection of it's interests like stability, security and development in any sphere is not dependent on any third party.

You missed the whole point. Strong Pakistan can negotiate a threat (any of it) better and becomes a barrier against chaos. This means conflict doesn't spill over to other nations as well as Pakistan itself. It is contained and suppressed. That instigator of instability can be India as a state as well; directly or as a facilitator of conditions which nourish instability and chaos (as is in Afghanistan). Regional stability and balance can not be defined from Indian perspective only. You are defining it from a very narrow angle which is 'it can only be good if there is no threat to India". Such approach is wrong by default. It is very threat to India that keeps her under check. That's the whole point and this is how it has worked all over the world (NATO vs Soviets etc). Now bring into equation nuclear weapons and the threat of all out nuclear war and it becomes even clearer. If India is too overwhelming, it is more likely to commit a foolish act of aggression and thus raising possibility of nuclear war manifold. That is exactly the reason Pakistan should be better armed conventionally in order to deter war and contain instability originating from Afghanistan.

If you for a moment get down from high horse of self proclaimed moral supermacy, it becomes abundantly clear to see. Now F-16s and AIM-120s will make a lot of sense to you (or at least to some readers).

 

[banvanaxl]

And no matter how many guns india buys it cant buys the needed pair of balls and will resort to just hot air flying from its ministers, as it wasn't Pakistan but india that threatened war both in 2002 and 2008 then chickened out.So tell me what good is your greater conventional strength if you cant use it?


The only kill your Su 30 mki ever had was a ballon from Pakistan while F-16 the fighting falcon dont needs any introduction

This is exactly the kind of thought process that caused you to loose half your country in 1971 and cause the spectacle of the largest surrender of armed forces worldwide, after WWII.

As a patriotic Indian citizen I can only hope that more of you and your kind flourish. May many more with your ideology, politics and intellect control the polity, leadership and military of Pakistan.


We need, .. Hell we demand that is more of your kind in Pakistan rise to the top ...

 

[jetray]

Infact it is reverse , a strong India will deter pakistan military and benefit pakistan's citizens. The OCD on kashmir is making pakistan insecure , breed terrorists and destroy their own citizens in the process.

 

[MilSpec]

You missed the whole point. Strong Pakistan can negotiate a threat (any of it) better and becomes a barrier against chaos. This means conflict doesn't spill over to other nations as well as Pakistan itself. It is contained and suppressed. That instigator of instability can be India as a state as well; directly or as a facilitator of conditions which nourish instability and chaos (as is in Afghanistan). Regional stability and balance can not be defined from Indian perspective only. You are defining it from a very narrow angle which is 'it can only be good if there is no threat to India". Such approach is wrong by default. It is very threat to India that keeps her under check. That's the whole point and this is how it has worked all over the world (NATO vs Soviets etc). Now bring into equation nuclear weapons and the threat of all out nuclear war and it becomes even clearer. If India is too overwhelming, it is more likely to commit a foolish act of aggression and thus raising possibility of nuclear war manifold. That is exactly the reason Pakistan should be better armed conventionally in order to deter war and contain instability originating from Afghanistan.

If you for a moment get down from high horse of self proclaimed moral supermacy, it becomes abundantly clear to see. Now F-16s and AIM-120s will make a lot of sense to you (or at least to some readers).

Then why hide behind the rhetoric of this counter terrorism application, say it out loud that you want US to subsidize arming of Pakistan against India, with US tax payers money.

As far as better armed pakistan is concerned, your track record shows how you have handled your affairs quite well. As far as perspective, we absolutely will look at it from our perspective. We don't need Pakistan to regulate the protection India's stability. Our due diliigence is to register a protest, and we have done so. That is the end of it. US being the real super power, we cannot really have any leverage on them. But it is evident of the side US gravitates to, and we can understand and appreciate it.

 

[Paksanity]

Then why hide behind the rhetoric of this counter terrorism application, say it out loud that you want US to subsidize arming of Pakistan against India, with US tax payers money.

As far as better armed pakistan is concerned, your track record shows how you have handled your affairs quite well. As far as perspective, we absolutely will look at it from our perspective. We don't need Pakistan to regulate the protection India's stability. Our due diliigence is to register a protest, and we have done so. That is the end of it. US being the real super power, we cannot really have any leverage on them. But it is evident of the side US gravitates to, and we can understand and appreciate it.

No one is hiding behind anything. Anti terrorism operations by F-16s are suppressing forward elements of Indian policy. This has greatly help curtailed spread of these elements whose sole beneficiary was India. Not a rocket science. And if and when necessary these will take on overt state aggression by India as well.

Of course you will see it from your perspective but you can not expect US to see it from your perspective. They will see it from their's. However in order to make some sense of whole situation, one has to look at it from nobody's perspective. And that tells us that counterweight to India is required in the region if stability is required in the region.

US gravitates to none except US interests. An argument can be had in favour of Pakistan as well but that's a separate debate.

 

[Neutron]

A protest is not an attempt to control a third party, it's just a civilised atempt of making your case to a entity which claims to be natural ally. And as you are stating F16's sale is to develop conventional capabilities, you are contradicting the US's own version of intended application.

India is not in contract with US regarding sale of f-16s. An independent country selling something to an independent country is the bilateral issue between them.

Two Flaws in the statement. First, You yourself are contradicting US's logic of Military aid as you confess this transfer is to bolster Pakistan military strength against India.

As per my logic this transfer is to bolster Pakistan military strength and capabilities. Conventional war with India below nuclear thrush hold is not possible, therefore 8 f-16s will not result into major change in the equation. Right now Pakistan is fighting war against terrorism and air campaigns are very effective against them. Yes i am contradicting US logic of military aid to some extent because i am not representing US POV.

Second, development of conventional strength will increase nuclear threshold, then by applying the same logic, what kind of conventional strength would it take for Pakistan to completely denuclearize. There are no metrics measurable to a first use nuclear threshold, as your threshold is neither defined nor measurable.

I think you misunderstood my argument. Let me clarify, Development of conventional strength will increase the nuclear threshold only. Pakistan cannot afford to denuclearize at any cost.
nuclear threshold is not defined and measurable, how Indian strategist concluded that war is possible below threshold? It means Cold start doctrine is completely based on false premise and it is blunder of Indian military

 

[paritosh]

I completely agree to the thread title.
An educated prosperous Pakistan will lead to peace in the region. Future wars will not be fought over religion but resources...and we need to solve real issues like portable water, sanitation, etc. together.

 

[MilSpec]

India is not in contract with US regarding sale of f-16s. An independent country selling something to an independent country is the bilateral issue between them.

Just wondering how conveniently your ignored you 60000 civilians sacrificed argument without a retraction? on your point, let them arm you with 200 F16's it's still your bilatral view, we are well withing our rights to protest.

As per my logic this transfer is to bolster Pakistan military strength and capabilities. Conventional war with India below nuclear thrush hold is not possible, therefore 8 f-16s will not result into major change in the equation. Right now Pakistan is fighting war against terrorism and air campaigns are very effective against them. Yes i am contradicting US logic of military aid to some extent because i am not representing US POV.

It won't, but it is the same duplicity that India is complaining about. If it is to arm Pakistan against India, then say so, If US say's the same thing as you are then it makes it official where US stands vis-a-vis India-US relations.

I think you misunderstood my argument. Let me clarify, Development of conventional strength will increase the nuclear threshold only. Pakistan cannot afford to denuclearize at any cost.

I know, that was an obvious remark.

nuclear threshold is not defined and measurable, how Indian strategist concluded that war is possible below threshold? It means Cold start doctrine is completely based on false premise and it is blunder of Indian military

Sure it might be, it's just a deployment doctrine, not a book of god that cannot be changed.

 

[Neutron]

Just wondering how conveniently your ignored you 60000 civilians sacrificed argument without a retraction? on your point, let them arm you with 200 F16's it's still your bilatral view, we are well withing our rights to protest.


It won't, but it is the same duplicity that India is complaining about. If it is to arm Pakistan against India, then say so, If US say's the same thing as you are then it makes it official where US stands vis-a-vis India-US relations.


I know, that was an obvious remark.


Sure it might be, it's just a deployment doctrine, not a book of god that cannot be changed.

Pakistan is the front line state in this WOT, and thus facing casualties both civilian and military. Degradation and depletion of equipments is the secondary outcome. War against non state actors is the global responsibility as they are global threat to Nation states. It is the sane approach to support the states fighting against global threats. Opposition to these proposals means indirect moral support of non state actors.

Second point is related to diplomacy. Diplomacy is not duplicity and it is applicable to all.

Indian establishment is suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) vis-a-vis Paks. They want Paks to be dead. So, a stable Pak is out of question for them. Every incremental development by Paks, no matter how miniscule it is, increases their OCD exponentially. Even after all these setbacks if Paks can transduce their celebrated 7X larger arch enemy to this level, it needs to be considered as a success in itself…

Yah........seems like there is the perception.......stable Pakistan is threat for india.......and it is incorrect

 

[Neutron]

Well, this rule doesn't really apply only for Pakistan and India's relations. But Countries around the world need peaceful relations in their regions. But that's only possible if India stop supporting TTP or any othertremist groups against Pakistan.
Also, Pakistan should NEVER let India play the games and Pakistan keep asking for peace in region.
No when they don't want peace in region and want to mess up with Pakistan. Pakistan has to take severe actions. Not because Pakistan wants the chaos in the region, but because all the countries give priority to their benefits.
Have faced enough of the devastation already because of India.

Largely i agree with all points but in broader view strong conventional strength of pakistan will be the stabilising factor not destabilising in the region as there are less chances of war between countries with equal military muscles.

 

[EagleEyes]

Nothing new, the same applies to Pakistan vs Afghanistan.