Annual Water Quality Report Template: Fill & Download for Free

No Tory-negotiated trade deals will defend the interests of the working class. However, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson plays hardball in the eleventh-hour negotiations on what will replace Britain’s current arrangements with the European Union (EU), it’s possible Britain will end up trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. What will such a capitalist Brexit mean in relation to food supply, prices, quality, production and employment?The Brexit transition period, which maintains alignment with the EU over trade and tariffs, will end on 31 December 2020. Without an agreement, and with an acrimonious breakdown of the talks, the first thing that could happen is a snarling up of the food supply chains as lorry drivers try to negotiate a passage through customs border checks. The movement of livestock would also slow to a crawl as veterinary inspections take place at border crossings.This could rapidly lead to empty supermarket shelves since 80% of imported food sold in the UK comes from the EU. And with the short shelf life of fresh produce, panic buying could then ensue, as we saw during the first weeks of the Covid-19 lockdown.Tesco boss John Allen said: “We can’t rule out the possibility that if there is dislocation at the ports of entry to the UK there will be some shortages of some items of fresh food, at least for a time.” By “a time” he means “a few months”.This border chaos and food shortages could worsen the UK economy’s deepest recession in living memory. And if that causes the exchange rate of the pound against other currencies to slide, then the price of imported food will rise.Bloomberg, a finance media company, predicts that supermarket prices will rise in the coming months “as food supplies get pummelled by a triple whammy of Brexit, Covid-19 and weather-struck harvests”.Food poverty already affects nearly eight million people in Britain, and is growing under the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic – as highlighted by the furore over the Tories’ refusal to provide free school meals to needy families over the autumn school break. It is likely to increase still further (see front page).A temporary schedule of tariffs (import duties) published by the government back in May, set about 85% of EU food imports subject to tariffs of more than 5%. The British Retail Consortium predicts that without a free trade deal with the EU in place by 1 January, EU food imports would face average tariffs of 20%.The Tory government put this ‘UK Global Tariff’ in place to force the leaders of the 27 member states to capitulate. But what if they don’t? Steep price rises and food shortages combined could lead to social unrest, including looting and rioting.Civil unrestOf course, such a chaotic scenario is dismissed by the government as ‘irresponsible scaremongering’. But its own official Operation Yellowhammer papers from 2019 spoke of the police preparing for the possibility of civil unrest.And in September this year, Martin Hewitt, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said: “EU exit will be happening on 31 December and planning for that is starting to ramp back up…”Tory hardline Brexiteers counter that slashing import duties to zero will actually reduce the prices of some imports. However, even the Johnson government has baulked over this idea as it would expose UK farmers to fierce global competition, which includes food products produced much cheaper, partly due to lower animal welfare standards.Interestingly, in the government’s Agricultural Bill, that recently passed its third reading in the Commons, the government threw out a Lords amendment that would have codified in law that all foodstuffs must comply with domestic animal welfare standards.The reason for this refusal is because Johnson is desperate to secure a trade and tariffs deal with the US. But Trump’s administration has made it clear that any such deal is contingent upon allowing potentially unsafe food products – such as chlorine-washed chicken carcasses and growth hormone-injected beef – into the UK market.Johnson is engaged with a game of brinkmanship with his EU counterparts. He is hoping that the EU leaders will blink first and accept a favourable free trade deal with the UK.However, if this fails, the EU could impose high ‘third country’ tariffs on UK agriculture exports, currently worth £13 billion a year. This would cripple UK sheep farmers, for example.And without an EU-UK trade deal, imports into the UK economy will revert to World Trade Organisation ‘non-discriminatory’ rules. So if the UK government continues to allow EU imports at zero-tariffs, it will be obliged to allow these rules to apply to other non-EU countries. And while this will keep consumer prices low, UK agribusiness will be adversely affected.Anticipating this disastrous consequence of an exit on WTO terms from the EU, the UK government, as previously mentioned, has made arrangements for a ‘temporary tariffs schedule’, lasting one year. This would allow the majority of imports to be tariff-free but with higher tariffs applied to beef and lamb imports.On top of all this mess is the government’s Fisheries Bill, which passed through the Commons in October. Its main provision will be to end access of EU fishing fleets to British waters. Currently, EU fleets have access to 60%. This was a concession made decades ago by the Tories to gain British entry into the EEC (as the EU was then known).Apart from a possible confrontation between British and French fishing crews post-Brexit, the government defeated an amendment to the Bill to protect these waters from overfishing by super-trawlers.Already, 97% of Britain’s supposedly protected coastal marine parks have been wrecked by dredgers and sea-bottom trawlers. Super-trawlers will still be allowed access to the marine parks as long as they don’t bottom trawl!Health, workers and environmentTory Brexiteers often cite Canada’s free trade deals as a template for a US-UK deal. However, such a deal could have serious negative implications for public health.In 1989, Canada struck a free trade deal with the US. Five years later, Canada removed its 5% import tariff on high-fructose corn syrup products, which are typically found in breakfast cereals, icecream, soft drinks, etc.According to the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, a rise in obesity levels, and associated illnesses such as diabetes since the 1990s, can be partly attributed to this deal.Consumer, medical, and environmental organisations, the National Farmers Union, and even celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, pointed out the dangerous health implications ahead of the government’s Agricultural Bill – but to no avail.However, it’s not only imports of cheaper high sugar, fat and salt foods that would fill our supermarket shelves under a free-trade deal with the US (not that the British retail industry has done very much to source healthy foods). Many food products from the US, and elsewhere, contain traces of pesticides currently banned in the UK.Donald Trump’s chief trade negotiator made it clear that any deal with the UK must allow in American food products containing trace residues of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.Even the right-wing Mail on Sunday pointed out that 70 pesticides currently banned in the UK are used on US farms. Such pesticides are widely used in neocolonial countries and, according to Greenpeace, are responsible for a staggering 200,000 deaths a year.And even if Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden wins the race to the White House, it’s clear that this capitalist establishment figure would push US agribusiness interests in any future US/UK trade deal.Another issue is the abuse of antibiotics in US pig farms. There, the antibiotic Carbadox – banned in the EU since 1998 – is commonly used to increase the weight of pigs. Such antibiotic overuse in agriculture is resulting in these medicines becoming less effective in treating infections in humans.Of course, no one should be under any illusions that pesticide use, along with other adverse practices, on Britain’s mega-farms – operating under EU rules – are environmentally better. A recent DEFRA report showed that water quality of Britain’s lakes and rivers has collapsed in the last five years due to agricultural run-offs of pesticides and animal slurry.Migrant workersBut wouldn’t breaking with the current trade arrangements with the EU provide an opportunity for British agriculture becoming more self-sufficient?At present, 61% of all the food eaten is produced in the country. Apart from the time lag in bringing more land into use – assuming farmers are willing or able to invest – there remains the problem of labour supply. The Covid-19 pandemic restrictions on the movement of labour within Europe has already highlighted the dependency of migrant workers on UK farms.The Tories obliged agribusiness by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board in 2013, which set minimum wage rates. The effect has been to make UK farms almost wholly reliant on migrant workers. As the recent failure to create a British ‘land army’ during the Covid-19 pandemic shows, UK farms would have to significantly increase wages to attract a new domestic workforce. But that would shrink the industry’s profit margins making UK farms uncompetitive in world markets.However, there shouldn’t be any illusions in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP, in short, means handing over large sums of public money to farmers, often to overproduce. It results in an average family of four having to pay over £15 a week extra in food bills. The annual income of an EU dairy cow exceeds that of half the world’s human population!Of course, the bulk of these subsidies goes to mega-farms and not marginal farmers. It also means dumping the surplus products on neocolonial countries, thereby undermining domestic farming which can’t compete.The CAP has also been blamed for encouraging environmentally damaging intensive farming. Its commitment to guarantee prices makes it economically worthwhile to use all available land, with the aid of chemicals, to grow more crops.The current EU proposals to reform the CAP have been derided as ‘greenwash’ by many environmental groups, who point to the policy amendments maintaining direct farming subsidies, along with deregulation and dismantling environmental checks.Free trade v protectionismThe ‘food question’ under Brexit has brought into sharp relief the historic struggle within capitalism between advocates of protectionism and free trade.For socialists, however, they are two sides of the same system of capitalist exploitation.Neither protectionism nor free trade under capitalism can guarantee sustainable agriculture, with plentiful wholesome food, produced by non-exploited labour. That would require the coming to power of a workers’ government.The Socialist Party supported a vote to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. We called for a socialist Brexit which would mean ripping up the EU bosses’ club neoliberal rules, not in order to create the more isolated and even more exploitative neoliberal vision of the Tory right but to begin to fight for a socialist society.As the Socialist has previously explained: “For socialists, it does not matter so much where production is situated in a global economy but it is a question of which class in society controls production.The only way workers can properly protect themselves against the volatility and instability of the capitalist economy is ultimately through taking over the means of production, distribution and exchange and for the economy to be democratically owned and controlled by the working class in a socialist plan of production.”

No Tory-negotiated trade deals will defend the interests of the working class. However, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson plays hardball in the eleventh-hour negotiations on what will replace Britain’s current arrangements with the European Union (EU), it’s possible Britain will end up trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. What will such a capitalist Brexit mean in relation to food supply, prices, quality, production and employment?The Brexit transition period, which maintains alignment with the EU over trade and tariffs, will end on 31 December 2020. Without an agreement, and with an acrimonious breakdown of the talks, the first thing that could happen is a snarling up of the food supply chains as lorry drivers try to negotiate a passage through customs border checks. The movement of livestock would also slow to a crawl as veterinary inspections take place at border crossings.This could rapidly lead to empty supermarket shelves since 80% of imported food sold in the UK comes from the EU. And with the short shelf life of fresh produce, panic buying could then ensue, as we saw during the first weeks of the Covid-19 lockdown.Tesco boss John Allen said: “We can’t rule out the possibility that if there is dislocation at the ports of entry to the UK there will be some shortages of some items of fresh food, at least for a time.” By “a time” he means “a few months”.This border chaos and food shortages could worsen the UK economy’s deepest recession in living memory. And if that causes the exchange rate of the pound against other currencies to slide, then the price of imported food will rise.Bloomberg, a finance media company, predicts that supermarket prices will rise in the coming months “as food supplies get pummelled by a triple whammy of Brexit, Covid-19 and weather-struck harvests”.Food poverty already affects nearly eight million people in Britain, and is growing under the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic – as highlighted by the furore over the Tories’ refusal to provide free school meals to needy families over the autumn school break. It is likely to increase still further (see front page).A temporary schedule of tariffs (import duties) published by the government back in May, set about 85% of EU food imports subject to tariffs of more than 5%. The British Retail Consortium predicts that without a free trade deal with the EU in place by 1 January, EU food imports would face average tariffs of 20%.The Tory government put this ‘UK Global Tariff’ in place to force the leaders of the 27 member states to capitulate. But what if they don’t? Steep price rises and food shortages combined could lead to social unrest, including looting and rioting.Civil unrestOf course, such a chaotic scenario is dismissed by the government as ‘irresponsible scaremongering’. But its own official Operation Yellowhammer papers from 2019 spoke of the police preparing for the possibility of civil unrest.And in September this year, Martin Hewitt, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said: “EU exit will be happening on 31 December and planning for that is starting to ramp back up…”Tory hardline Brexiteers counter that slashing import duties to zero will actually reduce the prices of some imports. However, even the Johnson government has baulked over this idea as it would expose UK farmers to fierce global competition, which includes food products produced much cheaper, partly due to lower animal welfare standards.Interestingly, in the government’s Agricultural Bill, that recently passed its third reading in the Commons, the government threw out a Lords amendment that would have codified in law that all foodstuffs must comply with domestic animal welfare standards.The reason for this refusal is because Johnson is desperate to secure a trade and tariffs deal with the US. But Trump’s administration has made it clear that any such deal is contingent upon allowing potentially unsafe food products – such as chlorine-washed chicken carcasses and growth hormone-injected beef – into the UK market.Johnson is engaged with a game of brinkmanship with his EU counterparts. He is hoping that the EU leaders will blink first and accept a favourable free trade deal with the UK.However, if this fails, the EU could impose high ‘third country’ tariffs on UK agriculture exports, currently worth £13 billion a year. This would cripple UK sheep farmers, for example.And without an EU-UK trade deal, imports into the UK economy will revert to World Trade Organisation ‘non-discriminatory’ rules. So if the UK government continues to allow EU imports at zero-tariffs, it will be obliged to allow these rules to apply to other non-EU countries. And while this will keep consumer prices low, UK agribusiness will be adversely affected.Anticipating this disastrous consequence of an exit on WTO terms from the EU, the UK government, as previously mentioned, has made arrangements for a ‘temporary tariffs schedule’, lasting one year. This would allow the majority of imports to be tariff-free but with higher tariffs applied to beef and lamb imports.On top of all this mess is the government’s Fisheries Bill, which passed through the Commons in October. Its main provision will be to end access of EU fishing fleets to British waters. Currently, EU fleets have access to 60%. This was a concession made decades ago by the Tories to gain British entry into the EEC (as the EU was then known).Apart from a possible confrontation between British and French fishing crews post-Brexit, the government defeated an amendment to the Bill to protect these waters from overfishing by super-trawlers.Already, 97% of Britain’s supposedly protected coastal marine parks have been wrecked by dredgers and sea-bottom trawlers. Super-trawlers will still be allowed access to the marine parks as long as they don’t bottom trawl!Health, workers and environmentTory Brexiteers often cite Canada’s free trade deals as a template for a US-UK deal. However, such a deal could have serious negative implications for public health.In 1989, Canada struck a free trade deal with the US. Five years later, Canada removed its 5% import tariff on high-fructose corn syrup products, which are typically found in breakfast cereals, icecream, soft drinks, etc.According to the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, a rise in obesity levels, and associated illnesses such as diabetes since the 1990s, can be partly attributed to this deal.Consumer, medical, and environmental organisations, the National Farmers Union, and even celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, pointed out the dangerous health implications ahead of the government’s Agricultural Bill – but to no avail.However, it’s not only imports of cheaper high sugar, fat and salt foods that would fill our supermarket shelves under a free-trade deal with the US (not that the British retail industry has done very much to source healthy foods). Many food products from the US, and elsewhere, contain traces of pesticides currently banned in the UK.Donald Trump’s chief trade negotiator made it clear that any deal with the UK must allow in American food products containing trace residues of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.Even the right-wing Mail on Sunday pointed out that 70 pesticides currently banned in the UK are used on US farms. Such pesticides are widely used in neocolonial countries and, according to Greenpeace, are responsible for a staggering 200,000 deaths a year.And even if Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden wins the race to the White House, it’s clear that this capitalist establishment figure would push US agribusiness interests in any future US/UK trade deal.Another issue is the abuse of antibiotics in US pig farms. There, the antibiotic Carbadox – banned in the EU since 1998 – is commonly used to increase the weight of pigs. Such antibiotic overuse in agriculture is resulting in these medicines becoming less effective in treating infections in humans.Of course, no one should be under any illusions that pesticide use, along with other adverse practices, on Britain’s mega-farms – operating under EU rules – are environmentally better. A recent DEFRA report showed that water quality of Britain’s lakes and rivers has collapsed in the last five years due to agricultural run-offs of pesticides and animal slurry.Migrant workersBut wouldn’t breaking with the current trade arrangements with the EU provide an opportunity for British agriculture becoming more self-sufficient?At present, 61% of all the food eaten is produced in the country. Apart from the time lag in bringing more land into use – assuming farmers are willing or able to invest – there remains the problem of labour supply. The Covid-19 pandemic restrictions on the movement of labour within Europe has already highlighted the dependency of migrant workers on UK farms.The Tories obliged agribusiness by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board in 2013, which set minimum wage rates. The effect has been to make UK farms almost wholly reliant on migrant workers. As the recent failure to create a British ‘land army’ during the Covid-19 pandemic shows, UK farms would have to significantly increase wages to attract a new domestic workforce. But that would shrink the industry’s profit margins making UK farms uncompetitive in world markets.However, there shouldn’t be any illusions in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP, in short, means handing over large sums of public money to farmers, often to overproduce. It results in an average family of four having to pay over £15 a week extra in food bills. The annual income of an EU dairy cow exceeds that of half the world’s human population!Of course, the bulk of these subsidies goes to mega-farms and not marginal farmers. It also means dumping the surplus products on neocolonial countries, thereby undermining domestic farming which can’t compete.The CAP has also been blamed for encouraging environmentally damaging intensive farming. Its commitment to guarantee prices makes it economically worthwhile to use all available land, with the aid of chemicals, to grow more crops.The current EU proposals to reform the CAP have been derided as ‘greenwash’ by many environmental groups, who point to the policy amendments maintaining direct farming subsidies, along with deregulation and dismantling environmental checks.Free trade v protectionismThe ‘food question’ under Brexit has brought into sharp relief the historic struggle within capitalism between advocates of protectionism and free trade.For socialists, however, they are two sides of the same system of capitalist exploitation.Neither protectionism nor free trade under capitalism can guarantee sustainable agriculture, with plentiful wholesome food, produced by non-exploited labour. That would require the coming to power of a workers’ government.The Socialist Party supported a vote to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. We called for a socialist Brexit which would mean ripping up the EU bosses’ club neoliberal rules, not in order to create the more isolated and even more exploitative neoliberal vision of the Tory right but to begin to fight for a socialist society.As the Socialist has previously explained: “For socialists, it does not matter so much where production is situated in a global economy but it is a question of which class in society controls production.The only way workers can properly protect themselves against the volatility and instability of the capitalist economy is ultimately through taking over the means of production, distribution and exchange and for the economy to be democratically owned and controlled by the working class in a socialist plan of production.”

“China has a fighter named J-11D. How good is this fighter?”Shenyang J-11 is licence-built Sukhoi Su-27. The The J-11B is an unlicenced copy of Su-27 with much more Chinese sub-systems.J-10D looks more like being an upgrade with an AESA radar to existing J-11B, although there are 10 on order, maybe in order to replace lost airframes in squadrons: after the disastrous performances of the J-11 during the “Falcon Strike” drills against Royal Thai Air Force‘s Gripen-C/DThe PRC should take Gripen E as a template, says Senior Colonel Li Chunghua Hua of the PLAAFDuring the drills, in WVR, 25 J-11 were “shot down” at the cost of 2 Gripens, in BVR, it were 41 J-11 “lost” for 5 Gripens. Note that the Thai Gripens were only armed with AIM-120C and Sidewinders. RTAF has since purchased IRIS-T and ordered the MBDA Meteor. Since the J-10C behaved better than the J-11A or J-10A/B, thanks to its AESA radar, it’s no surprise that PLAAF decided to upgrade J-11A/B with an AESA. It’s likely that RTAF will order a radar upgrade for their Gripen-C/D in order to have Gripen-E’s AESA Raven ES-05 radar… If there are some more “Falcon Strike” series drills, it might be epic, although the several countries implied in the Gripen’s systems as well as in the Meteor and the IRIS-T may ask Thailand to not proceed with further “Falcon Strike” drills as China may do ELINT/SIGINT that may reduce these systems’ efficiency by helping to develop countermeasures…The Shenyang J-16 has been introduced in 2015 and is a Su-30 copy fit with an AESA radar (thus, in 2018 these were still not considered combat ready). It has been reported that measures to reduce the J-16’s radar cross section as well as the same radar absorbing paint you see on J-20 are usedWhat is the quality of its engines?Now, about the quality of J-11/15/16 engines…Shenyang WS-10B Taihang Doesn’t Solve China’s Engine NightmareWell, the tittle of the link says everything, and when you know that Russian engines are already lambasted for their short MTBO (mean time between overhaul) of only a few hundred hours (at best a thousand), short lifespan (2000-3000 hours, sometimes 4000 if you're lucky) and that it’s not uncommon that PLAAF manages to replace its Flankers’ WS-10s by original Russian AL-31F because WS-10 sucks or that Pakistan insisted to get real Klimov RD-93 for its JF-17 rather than its Chinese pendant, you may not want WS-10A or B… The WS-10B still doesn’t allows J-11/15/16 to go supersonic without afterburner and its afterburner is still freaking thirsty, so…“What is the price of this fighter?”Wikipedia lists the J-11 value as $30M per unit, thus it’s very dubious since a J-10 already costs close to $30M, and the J-11D having avionics upgrade, especially a costly AESA radar… Nevertheless, the biggest cost of a jet fighter is not its cost of purchase, it’s its cost of use, and the annual cost of use of a Russian Flanker is on par with the F-15E with $32k per flight hour therefore, keeping 3 pilots trained, each with 160 yearly flight hours will cost you $15.3 millions. With WS-10B that are even more troublesome than Russian AL-31F, you’re likely to equal the Typhoon at $40k/h or the F-15C at $44k/h…“Should Pakistan buy this fighter?”Due to Russian intellectual property, China can’t export J-11/15/16. I don’t think Russia is willing to lose its best client by starting sales of its gear, even Chinese-built, to Pakistan. Pakistan is nowhere near to get any J-11/15/16, unless China wants to be sued at the WTO and end having to compensate Russia with financial damages worth twice the contract with Pakistan…“Will it make any difference to its military inferiority vs the Indian Air Force?”Even if it managed to get it, J-11D would make no difference… Actually, the size of Pakistan, unlike for India which is a really huge country, doesn’t requires heavy jet fighters. Another point is that India NEVER attacked Pakistan, Pakistan has ALWAYS been the aggressor, even the 2019 Balakot strike was a retaliation on the JeM Pulwama terror attack and as everybody knows, JeM is nothing else than an ISI creature, in other terms, if Pakistan stops its irrational and unjustified aggressions on India, PAF won’t have to face India’s wrath and India having 6x Pakistan’s population and 11x its economy and 7x its military budget, forget about winning an arms race on India. The truth is that Pakistan is a stratocracy (a military dictatorship under constitutional disguise) and Pak-Army fans the flames of conflict with India to justify its abusive power…Moreover, the jingoistic 4% of GDP spent in the military impedes Pakistan’s economy, being a nuclear power reduces the risk of an invasion to near ZERO, This fact should have allowed to significantly reduce Pak-Army”s manpower but it’s still a 650k+ army added with about 350–400k paramilitaries and a terrorist-petting zoo with tens of thousands fanatical looneys praying 5 times a day to make Pak another Afgha under Talibans’ rule…Considering the F-16’s capability at being pushed to 4 missions per 24h, the poor reliability of the WS-10A/B will imply even being less mission capable as a Su-27/30/33/35 so, less than 3 missions per 24h is two, so you’ll need 150 J-11D to replace your 75 F-16s which already cost $11M/year each by aircraft that cost $15.3M/year each if not more. Prepare yourself to increase your Mil-budget by about at least $1.5bn/year to sustain your 150 J-11D if you retire the F-16s and want to keep their operational capabilities, any way you’re likely to end forced to retire them, the US are nowhere near to forgive Pakistan for having hidden bin Laden for 10 years…Pakistan’s foreign debt is about $125 billions (and Pak state’s public debt is of $270bn). By stopping this totally dumb behaviour towards India which, would UN regulations be strictly applied, would even have Pak’s UN seat suspended as long it doesn’t behaves according to UN’s charter (yup , and Pak wouldn’t be the only one! There are more than 50 countries that should be suspended, even China for its illegal occupation of Tibet should be suspended!) and reducing its Mil-budget to $5bn, the foreign debt would disappear within 25 years, moreover, trade with India will soon improve the economics. By finishing off roaches like JeM, LeT and other varmint like them, tourists will soon come back as they used to before Zia ul-Huq made the country becoming insane. Close your 6000 madrasas that just create terrorists because there are not enough imam jobs for their “students”, replace these by REAL schools, empower women, stop persecutions on minorities, etc, in other terms, become a normal country, and you won’t need more than 200k militaries and no paramilitaries at all!Now, without this ridiculous rivalry with India, well you already have 135 JF-17 block 1/2. Now the block.3 is coming with a more powerful engine and an AESA radar. Mark my word, with 135 JF-17 bloc.3 adding, the JF-17 fleet will weight 15 squadrons and the bloc.1/2 might be partly upgraded to be close to the block.3. Considering the geography of Pakistan, these 270 JF-17 will be more than enough to protect the airspace : if we include illegally occupied Kashmir, Pak is 1152km long and if it can be as large as 1171km between the extreme points of Balochistan and Sindh, it’s mostly less than 550km large while between POK’s LOC and Afghanistan, it’s less than 250km…Frankly, if your air-boss can’t manage to place 15 squadrons or 30 half squadrons of JF-17 in a way that any airspace violation can be intercepted by PAF in less than 2 minutes, using R-Darter or PL-12, fire the general in charge of PAF, and when it comes to CAS/COIN, if the PAC can’t prepare gunship-kits for your 18x C-130 Hercules, 4x CN-235, etc, fire PAC’s boss, and NESCOM can clearly provide more Burraqs than the 13 in service…Normal countries have an army, in Pakistan, the army has a country. Moreover, Pakistan is an ideological state, and all ideological states, especially those based on religious ideologies, have ALL became failed states, normal countries, those who last and are prosperous, are ran through real-politik. Become a normal country and you won’t need to question about how rivalling India because, any way, it’s impossible.Actually, if India was as nice toward Pakistan that Pakistan is towards India,Guess what they would do? Ever heard about the Indus Waters Treaty?Guess what? I’d buy some Bagger 293 and/or Bagger 288And some smaller excavators, trenchers and maybe even some tunnel boring machines if ever I have to dig through mountainsThen guess what can be done with such machines?Well, you’ve surely heard about the Thar desert?And about the Indira Gandhi Canal :This canal is fed by a pat of the Beas+Sutlej rivers, but another part flows into Pakistan. Let’s use these machines to dig a second canal at insane speed and to elongate the Indira Gandhi Canal into Gujarat… Then cut the Sutlej water flow for Pakistan! Then the Ravi river can be rechannelled into the Beas and the Chenab into the Ravi. It would be more difficult to rechannel the Jehlam and even more for the Neelum, but for real bravehearts, nothing impossible. Indus and Shyok don’ look good for this, but… several dams with huge reservoirs, then once they are full, the whole water can be rapidly emptied…Imagine how it would be wonderful : it’d bring Pakistanis one step closer from becoming Arabs : they could start riding camels in the desert, start to wear white thobes for males and abaya for females, learn to speak Arabic. Pakis would be eternally thankful to Modi to having turned them into Arabs.Isn’t this vision of Pakistan’s future romantic?