Posted on 11/05/2002 4:40:14 AM PST by akash
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has approved the acquisition of an anti-ballistic missile system from the US, at an estimated over 1.5 billion dollars, to be deployed at key sensitive installations and nuclear facilities, Kyodo news agency quoting authoritative defence sources reported on Tuesday.
The sources told the Japanese agency, on condition of anonymity, that the defence ministry has narrowed down its choices to the Patriot Air Defence System, the Nike Hercules missiles and the Hawk missile system.
The deal is estimated to cost more than 1.5 billion dollars and would be in addition to the military purchase that Pakistan has been negotiating with the US under the aegis of the Pakistan-US Defence Consultative Group, which met in Islamabad in September this year.
Washington has lifted a 1990 ban on supply of military equipment to Pakistan after Musharraf backed the US in its war against terrorism following the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the US.
The sources said preliminary talks have been held with the US, which reportedly has expressed its willingness to supply an anti-missile system to Pakistan to discourage further missile proliferation in the region.
Pakistan, which is a very important member of the Islamic World,...
That part I agree with. Pakistan has been active in promoting and supporting Islamic terrorism everywhere and should have a very high standing in the islamic world.
Actually BrookHaven Pakistan is probably one of the most potent terror threats in the world today! So great infact that the British Foreign Secretary states that it is the premier terror threat in the world today!
Pakistan is a nation that is has undergone, and is undergoing volatility in its political climate. For example after the October elections the ball is still in the air who will replace Musharaff, and if this replacement can be able to hold Pakistan together! As for Musharaff he is basically a person who has the sword of Damocles hanging over his head (he has to have around 3 decoys plus hordes of commandos protecting him, and at best he is just a figurehead).
Furthermore Pakistan is rife with Islamic fundamentalists! As a matter of fact probably no other nation has a higher percentage of Jehadi extremists than Pakistan (including Afghanistan at the height of the Taliban). The problem here is that there is continous strive among the extremists to convert Pakistan from an Islamic state into an overtly extremist Islamic state (although in my opinion based on the past activities of the Pakistan ISI intelligence service Pakistan may be technically termed as an 'overt extremist/terrorist state')!
Pakistan also has possession of nuclear weapons! Not just fissile material but actual weapons! There has been great concern that in the event of a war with India (where all Western analysts agree that India would kick Pakistan's @$$ hard) that Pakistani's ISI service would hand over some of the nukes (most probably nuclear material) to terrorists as a way of getting back at the world!
Now for the ISI: This is the Pakistani version of the CIA (although technically it is more like the Mossad, or even the CIA of the sixties, than the CIA of today). The ISI has been caught in various situations that are highly questionable for a nation that should be against terrorism! For example the ISI regularly aids islamic terrorists heading off into India (actually most of the major terrorist attacks in India are fully backed ISI operations of Jehadi terrorists). Secondly Musharaff has no control whatsoever over the ISI! It exists as a virtually autonomous entity, and some say he is under its thumb!
By the way going back to Pakistan's nukes i have posted in the past threads that show Pakistani commanders saying that they would be willing to launch a surprise nuclear strike on Indian cities! When asked by the reporter whether such an act is prudent (because not only is India stronger in conventional weapons but India also has a more potent nuclear force and would destroy Pakistan as a viable nation) the Pakistani commander said that it would be 'worth it' to destroy 2 or 3 major Indian cities even though India would destroy every major Pakistani city and industrial plant! In essence the guy was advocating a suicidal nuclear strike against India!
Basically Pakistan is a farce when it comes to the war against terrorism because it is the premier breeding ground of terrorists! The only reason it was in the W.A.T is because it has a long border with Afghanistan and thus we needed it to send soldiers into the Pakistan/Afghanistan border to ensure Al queda operatives do not escape into Pakistan (however some sources say that Pakistani soldiers allowed several key Al Queda operatives carte blanche pass into Pakistan, and hence effected their escape).
Thus when you state in your post that Pakistan is more valuable to us than India you are sadly mistaken! Int he war against terrorism India is by far the better ally (plus it is itself a victim of Pakistani backed terrorism). Secondly when it comes to trade India is a better partner (India's economy is by a high degree many times better than Pakistan's ...some even say that if it were not for India's wealth distribution problems India is for all purposes a developed nation)! Thridly when it comes to geo-politics India will be one of the biggest US allies because India has sufficient strength to offer an answer to Chinese expansion in the region! Mix that with Russia aligning itself more with the US and suddenly the US has the ability to ensure, through India and Russia, that China does not become the threat some say it will be, and if it does become that something can be done!
India basically is one of the countries that are truly beneficial for the US. Pakistan on the other hand is a country that just escaped from being listed in the 'Axis of Evil' ....and probably will be included the next time the list is made. Hopefully together with Saudi Arabia!
By the way as an aside: guess which two countries supported the Taliban and had political liaisons with them? Yep, guessed it right! Pakistan and Saudi Arabia!Hawk missile system has no anti-missile capabilities! Hence it is not plausible! The Patriot missile system has anti-missile capability, but not against the nuclear missiles India possesses! Hence you can cancel it out! As for the Nike-Hercules that system does have anti-ballistic capability .....but it is an ancient system (i mean ancient) and is no longer viable against modern ballistic missiles! I am actually surprised that the US would have the audacity to offer such stuff to Pakistan, and that Pakistanis would be STUPID enough to receive Nike-Hercules! Indian generals must be laughing.
However personally i doubt the veracity of this thread! The only parts that may be true must be the Patriot sales (if even that is true). However i would not be worried for India because they have very strong ties with Israel (actually the Indian R.A.W intelligence service has been working regularly with the Israeli Mossad), and Israel is selling Arrow anti-missile systems to India, which are much better than the Patriot! Hence India is still ahead of Pakistan, by far!
As for the Nike-Hercules .......LOL! 'nuff said! Actually major LOL!
Personally i think the author/journalist who write this article confused Patriot missile systems for true anti-ballistic missile systems and wrote the article! Or maybe the whole article is a farce (i say a farce because of the inlcusion of the obsolete Nike-Hercules, plus the Hawk missile system that has no anti-missile capabilities, let alone none against nuclear tipped ballistic missiles). Someone may be pulling our leg on this one!
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Chechneya and PLO( not real countries but % of jihadist is higher).
Thanks for pointing me to this article, keri.
First of all, I'm not at all sure that the report is true. But let's say it is, for the sake of the argument.
There is a theory that would support this move. [I don't subscribe to this theory, but I'll come to that later.]
Here's the theory in favor: The purpose of the ABM system would presumably be to protect Pakistan's nuclear-tipped missles. Such an ABM system arguably increases the stability of the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan, since it would deter India from carrying out a nuclear first strike. (If India could be reasonably sure of destroying all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons in a first strike, the Indians might decide to do it; but if they have reason to believe that some of Pakistan's nuclear weapons would survive a first strike, then they would not take that chance.) At the same time, an ABM system in theory doesn't increase one's offensive power (just defense), so it theoretically doesn't make things worse in some other way.
However, I do not believe that this argument is valid in this case. If the Islamists increase or make overt their hold on Pakistan, this would strengthen their military position considerably. They could engage in even larger terrorist attacks on India or other countries, and use their nuclear weapons as deterrence against a strong response, since everyone would know that their nuclear weapons could not reliably be destroyed in an attack.
Pakistan could even decide to start a nuclear war. This would be almost inconceivable for most countries, but suicidal actions are obviously not unknown among Muslim extremists. The ABM system would make them last longer in such a situation, increasing their destructive ability and the havoc they would be able to wreak, furthering the presumed goal of disrupting the current world social system with the aim of fomenting a worldwide Islamic revolution. This aim is doomed to failure, but they might try it.
Moreover, if terrorists wanted to make use of the Pakistani nuclear bombs, the ABM system could be used during a period of increased tension to protect the nuclear warheads while on the missiles, before the bombs were removed and secretly spirited away to the target destination. The ABM system would make it much more difficult to remove the Pakistani nuclear weapons preemptively, if it appeared that they were in danger of falling into terrorist hands.
There's one other point of consideration: Even if one is swayed by the stability argument, the period during which the ABM system is being planned and installed is a very risky, unstable time. After all, the Indians might perceive that this period, before the ABM system is fully installed, will be their last chance to eliminate Pakistan's nuclear capabilities (since once the ABM system is installed, India could no longer do it). And they might figure that they'd better take a chance on a first strike while they still have the opportunity, since once the opportunity is gone, it's gone for good.
In any case, arming Pakistan, which is at best an ally under duress, strengthening it relative to India, which is a natural ally of ours in the war against radical Islam, sounds wrongheaded. I think that sometimes defense analysts lose sight of simple truths, because they're too enamored of overly intellectual arguments. Do we really want to take the chance that we're helping to arm the Islamists?
What I'm uncomfortable with is the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan and arguably distancing ourselves from India; we certainly aren't equating India's Islamic terrorism problem with our own, in spite of the fact that they are two fronts of the same war. I think we're unwilling to do that politically, because it would require identifying ISI as being on the enemy side. But that's the truth.
On the other hand, maybe this is a necessary pretense at the current time. I suspect the plan is to face up to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia only after Iraq is dispatched (and maybe not even immediately thereafter).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.