Here's a crazy idea- Why doesn't the U.S. work on reducing global weapons proliferation. I know this is hopelessly naive, but it just seems to me that global security and stability might be enhanced if there were fewer, rather than more weapons floating around- particularly in areas where tensions are already running high.
The U.S. would not do something that was not in the interest of self preservation. Profit may be a result, but not likely a motive. Supplying a Terrorist nation with f-16 is unlikely. More like, supplying a country with f-16 so that they root out terror is the more likely the scenario. But whatever the reason for the decision, I think it would be safe to assume that it is in the interest of the United States.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-23-us-skies_x.htm The success of the Indian air force against American fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air Force general said Wednesday. "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were," said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
The US is the world's leader in weapons sales. We sold more than the world combined. In an ideal world, we should all export more aid, not misery.
Corrections: the US sold F-16's to Pakistan long ago. They later cancelled the deal after the Pakistani nuclear tests and which caused the ensuing sanctions. But guess what, the US never bothered to give the money back. Now if they sell it again they'll simply be double charging. I think that's a very profitable deal indeed. If I'm an investor and the US government is your typical run of the mill corporation, I'd definitely be investing in them. Some posters here feel they have a moral superioity without getting deep down acquinted with the subject. If you sell something, don't bother giving what is sold, at least give the freakin' money back. I'm sure Pakistan has starving children to feed.
Well, you could go to the Pakistani military fans' website (www.pakistanidefence.com off the top of my head) and check. Plenty of links, proofs and others. I remember walking into a discussion by one of my Pakistani friends, who was arguing just on that subject not too long ago. The gist of it was whether or not for them to keep trying to get the F-16, precisely the US screwed them before and might do it again. Needless to say, it was an odd experience for me.
Couldn't find a specific link but if this is true and Pakistan pays twice that's on them not on the U.S.
How so? If I sell you a car, takes your money, then don't bother giving you the car, what would you do? I don't think I'd blame anybody if you comes in and trashes my dealership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue2.html Fuell for South Asia's Arms Race The United States has far better ways to reward Pakistan for its helpful but selective pressure on Al Qaeda and the Taliban than President Bush's decision last week to break with 15 years of policy and sell Pakistan high-performance fighters whose only plausible use is to threaten India. Balancing those sales by offering New Delhi the chance to purchase, and perhaps build, similar planes doesn't lessen the damage of the Pakistan sale. It compounds it. The worst thing for these two nuclear powers, which have fought three wars against each other since 1947, is to encourage them to engage in a new, American-fueled arms race. The United States does have a compelling strategic interest in helping Pakistan. But the right kind of help does not consist of selling Pakistan's armed forces, led by the country's military dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, prestigious, expensive and dangerous weapons systems. Decades of swollen military budgets have virtually bankrupted Pakistan, leaving its government unable to afford adequate spending on education and job-creating economic modernization. Instead, its leaders have fed the Pakistani people a diet of belligerent nationalism and projects like nuclear weapons that are designed to enhance a sense of prestige. In this environment, civilian democracy has never struck deep roots, military takeovers have been common, and recruitment for a variety of groups preaching armed Islamist jihad has thrived. General Musharraf likes to advertise his occasional attacks on the most terrifying symptoms of this syndrome. He is far less willing to strike at its sources by pushing Pakistan toward development and democracy and far too eager to drain its resources on supersonic attack jets. In reviewing the new Pakistan arms sale policy, which overturns a 15-year-old ban imposed over concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons activity, Congress should think hard about the messages the United States wants to send to future proliferators. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons of its own after refusing to sign international nonproliferation treaties. Worse, it has spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and who knows what other countries, through the rogue network that was run by its top government nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan. When Dr. Khan's activities became public a little over a year ago, he was pardoned by Pakistan's government, which conveniently avoided embarrassing revelations about any help he might have received from allies in the Pakistani military. Advocates of these military sales will argue, as they always do, that if the United States did not sell Pakistan and India advanced fighter jets, other countries would. That is probably true, but it is not a justification for fueling an arms race.
another view point http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=13702772 F-16 sale: The economics behind it Washington: The Bush administration's decision to sell the F-16 jet planes to Pakistan has as much to do with economic reasons as it perhaps pertained to politics, security and American strategic calculations in South Asia and the Asia Pacific. The Bethesda-based Lockheed that makes the multi role combat plane had made no bones of the fact that it was looking for more orders if its plant in Fort Worth, which employs about 5,000 workers, is not to suffer further shutdowns. The Dallas, Texas plant had an estimated 5,800 workers in January 2004 but this January this was down to 5,000 and by next January was scheduled to be down to 4,000 according to Tom Jurkowsky, Spokesman of Lockheed Martin as quoted in The Washington Post. In announcing the decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan and in the process reversing a 15-year ban on the sale the Bush administration also made it known that it had no specific number of units that would be delivered to Pakistan. One figure had that number to 24 but administration officials made it known that there was no limit. Further it was clarified that what was heading the way of Pakistan were not those old versions sitting on a tarmac in Tuscon, Arizona that were originally intended for delivery some years ago. What is being pointed out is that the Fort Worth plant delivered its last of its F-16s to the US Air Force last month but that the plant is still building planes for Israel, Chile, the UAE and Poland. According to The Post, Lockheed has back orders for about 200 fighters with the last one coming off the production line in 2008. Lockheed has thus far supplied the F-16s to some 24 countries with a price tag of between $30 million and $40 million per copy. This, of course, it is being pointed out, will vary depending upon the kind of upgrades that are requested and allowed. At times the spares and other support equipment could add up to 150 per cent more of the original price tag. In the context of the F-16 sales to Pakistan, it is pointed out that Lockheed has a bigger issue or opportunity on its hands - the ability to bid and be able to supply another 100 or more of the F-16 jets if India opted to go in this direction. And the Bush administration has also made the point that the F-16 is not the last word on the subject when it came to sophisticated multi role fighter jets. And other companies in the jet fighters business like Boeing will stand to benefit. "That's not just F-16s. It could be F-18s," remarked a senior administration official stressing that while it was up to India to decide from which country it wanted the jets, Washington has decided that the US will compete and is allowed to compete for that sale.
My cousin works for one of the AF groups that sells these planes to other countries and then trains them on the maintenence. Like he told me...the US strips out every bit of technology, every bit of advanced weaponry, and every bit of advanced navigation or defense systems, to were the buying country only gets a shell of what the plane was in US hands. They basically get the engine, and body of the plane...it can fly, not do much else...its up to the buying country to install its own technology. Plus, they pay us double what we originally bought the planes for when we sell used ones. That is what we tend to do...we sell our old ones, and we get the new ones. He's personally seen other countries install mechanical bomb devices in some of these jets, where the pilot has to look through a scope with a crosshair like some old WWII plane. These planes are not really much a threat to anyone and if we had to go up against them, they wouldn't last 1 minute.
If this is true, why would anyone want to buy these F-16s? They could buy much better planes made by Russians, Chinese, Euros.
You don't think Russia, China or France aren't doing the same thing? Plus, the F16 as just a plane is pretty amazing.
Nothing like an arms race to boost the economy of the good ol' USA!!! Well, except for devaluing the dollars that is. Thank god those tax cuts ar working so well. Four more years!!!
