Who's bright idea is this?

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051225/...ia_pakistan_dc

Makes you wonder just how much clout the big defense contractors actually have in respect to military affairs when they stand to benefit.

WHY would you sell arms and fighter craft to two countries that are at odds with one another to the extent that India and Pakistan are? Because it's a "balanced" sale, that somehow makes it better? I know, I know, if they don't get their weapons of war from us, they'll probably get them from someone else, but is that a good excuse?

On another note, I think the whole counterbalancing China's increasing military capabilities thing is total BS. We would have to be selling weapons to every Asian country around the clock to match the potential China has in that area -- and to me that just smacks of yet ANOTHER arms race. We went through it with Russia for 4 decades, and it served absolutely NO purpose beyond feeding communist witch-hunts, adding more ticks to the Broken Arrow counts, and bankrupting one economy while giving a free license to rack up a continued military spending bloat for the other.

Seriously, even if for purely defense purposes, would India REALLY use the equipment to sure up the border between them and China? After all, Tibet and the Himalayas do a pretty decent job of that, and I don't think China has any plans to go charging around East Asia any time soon -- look at how much flak they're receiving over the Tibet fiasco -- so why would we want to even hint at weapons sales to India to counter the China possiblity (doesn't Taiwan make for enough of a sticky situation between us?)

And as for Pakistan, they've got some hardcore devastation they need to concentrate on repairing right now -- the last thing we should be doing is dangling pretty military purchases in front of their face (I hope for their sake they would reject our offer if we were to put it back on the table after a few months).

Isn't the threat of even a potential nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan enough? Selling them more arms only strikes me as stashing more fuel next to the fire.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Isn't the threat of even a potential nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan enough? Selling them more arms only strikes me as stashing more fuel next to the fire.

Good question. An old Cold War term comes to mind:


Excerpt:

"Mutual assured destruction" (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. It is also cited by gun control opponents as the reason why crime rates tend to be lower in heavily armed populations. See also Switzerland, whose comprehensive military defense strategy has prevented potential enemies from attempting invasions, even during World War II. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome: Nuclear Anihilation.