K2RULEZ
Elite Member
"Saaaaar, only Modi sources da best!"
U.S. Upgrades Pakistan’s F-16s , India Goes Into Panic!
- Thread starter Maarkhoor
- Start date
"Saaaaar, only Modi sources da best!"
BananaRepublic
Trusted Member
Master Chief
Trusted Member
Keep hyphenating.It looks like SOP for both sides
Pakistan opposes sale of Phalcon to India
ISLAMABAD - Pakistan yesterday warned that Israel's plans to sell the Phalcon early-warning radar system to India's military could raise tensions in South Asiawww.haaretz.com
Pakistan Criticizes Proposed Sale of US Missile Systems to India
Washington says the deal 'will not alter the basic military balance in the region'www.voanews.com
We love every second of it.
"Saar we only do what Pakijjtan already doing! It is all halal sAaR!"
Distant_Observer
Trusted Member
PAF should go for a squadron of F35s but as long as they are no restrictions. Obviously they can't be used offensively against Israel but India should be fair game in self defense.
KingQamaR
Elite Member
F-16s is still a formidable adversary to 95% of the combat aircraft currently flying. If it wasn’t for shItty American BS. Regardless what newer jet Indian fielded. F16 was capable of handling itself against any IAF Jets.
Block 70. Would have been amazing if they sold it us.
Block 70. Would have been amazing if they sold it us.
nahtanbob
Elite Member
there is no hyphenation when one party has to run to the IMF every 2-3 years
Cipher212
SpeedLimited
Both sides routinely 'express concern' over potential sales. It's all diplomacy slop pay it no mind.
Pakistan concerned over US' plans to transfer military technology to India
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Friday expressed deep concern over the United States' plan to transfer advanced military technologies to India, saying that it could cause military imbalances in the region...
www.thenews.com.pk
Pakistan Criticizes Proposed Sale of US Missile Systems to India
Washington says the deal 'will not alter the basic military balance in the region'
www.voanews.com
Every time Japan makes a small move on defence, we often see a forceful reaction from China. It is tempting to interpret such statements literally: China is frightened; therefore it is protesting.
International relations are rarely that simple.
A strong diplomatic protest is not necessarily evidence that a country believes the development will fundamentally alter the military balance. Statements, warnings and objections can themselves be instruments of statecraft. They communicate interests, establish red lines and, importantly, attempt to influence the future calculations of other governments.
The same framework is useful to understand India's objections when another country supplies defence equipment to Pakistan.
The simplistic interpretation is: “If India is so powerful, why is it complaining?”
But that misses the diplomatic purpose.....
India may have several reasons for objecting, and these should not automatically be interpreted as fear of one particular aircraft, missile, ship or defence system. An objection can signal to the supplier: “If you want a deeper strategic and economic relationship with us, understand that your defence relationship with Pakistan is something we take into account.”
That is diplomatic leverage.
This matters particularly when the third country also values its relationship with India. The objective does not have to be cancelling today's transaction. It might be to make the government think more carefully about tomorrow's transaction, the scale of future cooperation, technology transfers, upgrades or the political cost of expanding the relationship.
In international-relations language, this belongs to the broader world of signalling, deterrence and coercive diplomacy. Research on India-Pakistan relations specifically discusses coercive diplomacy and the way external alignments affect escalation dynamics. Recent scholarship also stresses the importance of signalling, competing narratives and external actors in South Asian crises.
There is also a psychological principle worth understanding: the immediate audience is not always the only, or even the most important, audience.
A diplomatic statement can simultaneously speak to:
1.the country supplying Pakistan;
2.other countries considering similar cooperation;
3.India's domestic audience;
4.Pakistan's policymakers; and.
5.the wider international community.
So when India publicly protests a defence sale to Pakistan, It does not automatically mean that India is terrified of the equipment.
But neither does it mean that the protest is meaningless.
The more sophisticated interpretation is: India is using the diplomatic tools available to it to increase the political cost of military cooperation with Pakistan. Whether that pressure actually succeeds is a separate empirical question and will vary from case to case.
Pakistan should understand this without insecurity or triumphalism. Powerful countries routinely use diplomacy, economic relationships, strategic partnerships and public signalling to shape the choices of third countries. That is part of statecraft.
Diplomacy is not only about persuading somebody today. Very often, it is about changing the calculation they make tomorrow.
Countries protest, warn and object not only because of immediate military danger, but because diplomatic signalling itself has strategic value.
A much better question is:
“What behaviour is India trying to influence by complaining?”
India's message to a supplier may effectively be: You want closer economic and strategic relations with us; therefore, understand that the depth of your defence cooperation with Pakistan may form part of our wider relationship.
That does not necessarily mean today's equipment frightens India. The diplomatic objective could be to influence the supplier's future calculations.
This is one reason international relations scholars study concepts such as signalling, deterrence and coercive diplomacy. Academic work specifically examining India-Pakistan relations describes coercive diplomacy as an important part of their strategic interaction.
So Pakistanis should neither celebrate every Indian objection as proof that “India is scared”, nor dismiss it as empty noise.
Study the objective behind the statement.
In geopolitics, what a country says publicly is often intended for several audiences, and sometimes the real target is not the adversary at all. It is the third country listening.
There is an important distinction between military capability and diplomatic influence.
When one state objects to another state's defence cooperation with a rival, we should not automatically assume that the objection reflects military fear. Governments also use diplomatic statements to communicate preferences, establish boundaries and influence third countries.
The mature way to study foreign policy is therefore to ask three questions:
Who is speaking? Who are all the audiences? What future behaviour is the statement intended to influence?
Once we start asking those questions, apparently emotional diplomatic rhetoric often begins to look considerably more strategic.
International relations are rarely that simple.
A strong diplomatic protest is not necessarily evidence that a country believes the development will fundamentally alter the military balance. Statements, warnings and objections can themselves be instruments of statecraft. They communicate interests, establish red lines and, importantly, attempt to influence the future calculations of other governments.
The same framework is useful to understand India's objections when another country supplies defence equipment to Pakistan.
The simplistic interpretation is: “If India is so powerful, why is it complaining?”
But that misses the diplomatic purpose.....
India may have several reasons for objecting, and these should not automatically be interpreted as fear of one particular aircraft, missile, ship or defence system. An objection can signal to the supplier: “If you want a deeper strategic and economic relationship with us, understand that your defence relationship with Pakistan is something we take into account.”
That is diplomatic leverage.
This matters particularly when the third country also values its relationship with India. The objective does not have to be cancelling today's transaction. It might be to make the government think more carefully about tomorrow's transaction, the scale of future cooperation, technology transfers, upgrades or the political cost of expanding the relationship.
In international-relations language, this belongs to the broader world of signalling, deterrence and coercive diplomacy. Research on India-Pakistan relations specifically discusses coercive diplomacy and the way external alignments affect escalation dynamics. Recent scholarship also stresses the importance of signalling, competing narratives and external actors in South Asian crises.
There is also a psychological principle worth understanding: the immediate audience is not always the only, or even the most important, audience.
A diplomatic statement can simultaneously speak to:
1.the country supplying Pakistan;
2.other countries considering similar cooperation;
3.India's domestic audience;
4.Pakistan's policymakers; and.
5.the wider international community.
So when India publicly protests a defence sale to Pakistan, It does not automatically mean that India is terrified of the equipment.
But neither does it mean that the protest is meaningless.
The more sophisticated interpretation is: India is using the diplomatic tools available to it to increase the political cost of military cooperation with Pakistan. Whether that pressure actually succeeds is a separate empirical question and will vary from case to case.
Pakistan should understand this without insecurity or triumphalism. Powerful countries routinely use diplomacy, economic relationships, strategic partnerships and public signalling to shape the choices of third countries. That is part of statecraft.
Diplomacy is not only about persuading somebody today. Very often, it is about changing the calculation they make tomorrow.
Countries protest, warn and object not only because of immediate military danger, but because diplomatic signalling itself has strategic value.
A much better question is:
“What behaviour is India trying to influence by complaining?”
India's message to a supplier may effectively be: You want closer economic and strategic relations with us; therefore, understand that the depth of your defence cooperation with Pakistan may form part of our wider relationship.
That does not necessarily mean today's equipment frightens India. The diplomatic objective could be to influence the supplier's future calculations.
This is one reason international relations scholars study concepts such as signalling, deterrence and coercive diplomacy. Academic work specifically examining India-Pakistan relations describes coercive diplomacy as an important part of their strategic interaction.
So Pakistanis should neither celebrate every Indian objection as proof that “India is scared”, nor dismiss it as empty noise.
Study the objective behind the statement.
In geopolitics, what a country says publicly is often intended for several audiences, and sometimes the real target is not the adversary at all. It is the third country listening.
There is an important distinction between military capability and diplomatic influence.
When one state objects to another state's defence cooperation with a rival, we should not automatically assume that the objection reflects military fear. Governments also use diplomatic statements to communicate preferences, establish boundaries and influence third countries.
The mature way to study foreign policy is therefore to ask three questions:
Who is speaking? Who are all the audiences? What future behaviour is the statement intended to influence?
Once we start asking those questions, apparently emotional diplomatic rhetoric often begins to look considerably more strategic.
PK781
Trusted Member
at this point, even arrival of additional J10C's and more PL-15 upgraded missiles will add to their misery (the idiotic war hawks in BJP and Congress both!).
Anything American given to Pakistan such as V kit upgrades would be terrifying to the likes of Modi and his warmongers.
GD Bakhshi will cry some more and curse to his hearts content! lolz
Anything American given to Pakistan such as V kit upgrades would be terrifying to the likes of Modi and his warmongers.
GD Bakhshi will cry some more and curse to his hearts content! lolz
hussain0216
Elite Member
Feroze
Trusted Member
I did not see the video. Good if this true.
But still better to go to China for military equipment.
Malcolm Reynolds
SpeedLimited
This is how Pakistanis have happiness in their lives. they think India has panic over a few F16s and all the rats come out their hole.
US will soon see Chinese steal the information under the noses of US personnel parked next to the F16s in pakistan.
US will soon see Chinese steal the information under the noses of US personnel parked next to the F16s in pakistan.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
-
-
-
-
Federal cabinet gives nod to imposition of emergency in KP; summary sent to president (4 Viewers)- Latest: Watandar
-
