Moscow arms sale to Chavez angers US

[Archer]

There is a parallel. Israel will not be secure until the Palestinian issue is resolved, just as India will not be secure until the Kashmir issue is resolved. And after 50 years of fighting, neither country is any closer to a lasting peace than they were in 1948.

India enjoys overwhelming conventional superiority over Pakistan, and everyone knows that. The sanctions placed on India and Pakistan by the US had a totally deleterious effect on Pakistan's defense capabilities. India did not suffer the same effects, because she armed through Russia, rather than the West.

Pakistan didn't have that option, and the US sanctions extended to Western European suppliers (with the exception of the French, of course, who would sell their own mothers) So for 13 or 14 years, Pakistan's defense capability steadily deteriorated, while India's was strengthened way out of proportion.

This is false. The reason being that it was not sanctions which did the trick, but economic issues. Paks economy was in the sh!tter & they couldnt afford French. Meanwhile China kept arming Pak, what about that?
Lastly- even India went through its own phase of economic adjustment- we dont see India asking for freebies because for over a decade it brought next to nothing, because its leaders mismanaged its economy.

The only way Pakistan can inflict considerable damage to India is with nuclear weapons. If Pakistan has the capability to defend itself conventionally, the nuclear option becomes less likely.

Sorry- if anything US arms have had the opposite effect vis a vis Pakistan. Each time, Pakistan has felt that an influx of arms allows it to change the status quo or even give it a semblance of equality vis a vis India, it has waged war or escalated its deniable war by proxy, ie jihadis. That reduces the nuclear threshold, not stabilizes it.

Both sides are entitled to the capability to defend themselves, and both need to recognize that any peace will have to be political in nature.

One can say the same of US operations vs Iraqi insurgents! Or isnt this a case of "my war has different rules"?

The US recognizes that there are terrorists operating out of Pakistan, but they are not equipped with F-16's, JDAMS, and Harpoon missiles. Those weapons are for the legitimate defense of the country, like it or not.

This is where the United States understanding of the region completely breaks down & more than anything reflects its Cold war legacy plus desire to bracket India and Pakistan as equals who need to be treated on the same footing on this topic. Bar the occasional nuke deal, which has commercial ramifications as well.

By arming Pakistan, you are arming its junta. And its that *same* junta which has set up these terrorists, sponsored them for decades, all the way since Zia ul Haqs time and made them an effective component of their strategy to "bleed India by a Thousand cuts" (Operation Topaq by Zia). So in effect, the junta is being armed to protect itself and its establishment from Indian retaliation *despite* using its Islamists to attack India.

If anything, given their past history- they have just done more & more attacks-and all that is doing, is raising the stakes in India to respond one way or the other. You are basically arming a state sponsor of terror.

Good grief, all we hear on this forum day in and day out is how powerful the Indian military is, Brahmos missiles, MKI's, ballistic missiles, etc, etc...Pakistan gets a handful of Harpoons to replace old inventory, and you guys are crying the blues

.

We all know how powerful the US military is, then why the brouhaha over the supposed Kornets and GPS jammers to Iraq? Or for that matter Sukhois to Venezuala or a few Russian S-300's or whatever to Iran?

In contrast the US has:

1. Revamped the Pakistani AD system- mulitple new radars (An/TPS-77's) with aerostats being negotiated.
2. Revamped their AF- F-16's with AMRAAMs and JDAMs plus a huge PGM package, which semantics aside is meant for offensive counter air. Built up their dwindling AAM stocks.
3.Revamped their Naval air arm- with upto 8 P3's and a sufficient stock of Harpoons for these & their surface fleet.
4. Substantially boosted their Army aviation with transfers of many choppers which has a direct effect on mobile forces.
5. Given them TOW-2As with tandem warheads, far better than their earlier Bakhta Shikan/ Red Arrow knockoffs, with 2000 rounds directed at India's T-90S acquisition.
6. Night vision, radio & all sorts of thingmajigs to "fight the war on terror". Whilst of course, the infiltration into Afghanistan continues.

There are many other items I have not included.

That apart revitalized the Pak economy with massive cash infusions, and resettlement of loans, sustainability apart, its clear that these have allowed Pak to step up its acquisitions from non US sources as well.

All this to a military junta, which continues to sponsor terror in India- why should India feel reassured or complacent about such a huge arms buildup?

India, which is five-six times Paks size does not field forces proportionate in superiority & is concetrating on its economy, why should Pak build up a disproportionately large force (for its size) & that too *for free*- while it continues attacking India with terror?

[Garry]

Those AK's will do a lot more damage than you know. They will find their way to gangs, kidnappers, drug dealers, marxist guerillas in Colombia, and who knows who else. They will kill DEA agents, LEO's and civilians, and that is certain. They are many times more deadly than the SU-30's, to innocents caught in the crossfire.

The fact that you characterise the SD's complaints as pathetic speaks volumes about you.
You think Pakistan is going to give Harpoon missiles and F-16's to terrorists???

Hi Highsea,

I think you are wrong here.... only every 5th AK in the world is produced in Russia.... and only every 4th in any of the countries of former USSR. The LARGEST export producer of AKs is China, Boulgaria, Czech and then Russia followed by Urkaine.

Same regarding RPGs, even the most recent ones...

If terrorists want them...... they do buy them. There is no lack of AKs anywhere in the emerging countries anyway. If Venezuela wants AKs it is beter to buy them from Russia. There are NO OFFICIAL LIMITATIONS on Venezuela on arms trade. ONLY USA. By any mean nobody can call USA an UNINTERESTED party to give objetive comments here. Same as Russia would never be objective on issues like Georgia.....

There were many statements made by State Departments which were completelly away with reality. Same with Russian Government. That is why I do try to filter the official statements in attempt to UNDERSTAND what is actual message.....

Chavez has no limitations on supplying guns before and after this deal. So what is the difference? The Monroe Doctrine!