We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → war on pakistan
| 261 | 29782 |
as now things r going like Indian war excercises on our eastern borders and some american officials saying that they will attack in pakistan if they have to (like in jacobabad)
do you think there will be a war on pakistan by India and america or both
and
what will b china & israel's position on it
- 261 Replies
Pakistan nuking India is the most likely, for obvious reasons.
Though likely, you have to consider that Pakistan endangers itself to radiation by nuking India.
Pakistan couldn't nuke America, because It'd be shot down well before it ever made it to the continent.
You can't prove that. Pakistan might be much poorer and underdeveloped than America, but if we're talking about full fledged war, you can bet yourself that if Pakistan wanted, they could launch all nukes at once and load some on as cargo.
Also, Pakistan having middle eastern allies, the missiles could come from any middle east controlled area in the world.
I'm not stating that it's 100% likely Pakistan can nuke us, but I think it's outrageous to assume the Atlantic Ocean is going to still be our first line of defense and awareness in the 21st century.
And land, because with an actual war against a country, we can use pretty much whatever seems fit. We won't to worry because if anyone acts suspicious, we can just shoot them.
Nope, it won't work like that.
First, we'd need reason to go to war. Secondly, we'd need to blame someone. Our goal can not be to eradicate an entire country. I'm not sure even the American people, let alone the international community would stand for it.
Also, I'm not sure our infantry would do the sweetest job like you say. Karachi alone is a city with 7-9 million people. I'm not sure how easy it would be just to shoot anyone that messes with you.
You forget that India and Pakistan are arch-enemies on the Middle East playground. If we lose Afghanistan as a staging point, we'd just gain India.
South Asia, not Middle East. [Not trying to be rude, just removing stereotypes if they exist].
Also, I doubt we would just merrily gain India. Though India and the USA are good friends, it would be stupid for the US to try to use India.
India might just reject the offer because they're a pretty strong military force that might not want the USA using their land as a staging point for attacks [and, if the worst comes, an area for attack].
Furthermore, if India does join in, this war becomes much more global and I can definitely see China and Russia picking sides, with China giving more support to Pakistan I would assume.
Lastly, the India/Pakistan border is so heavily guarded that America, even with all of its military might and equipment, would suffer excessive casualties charging through it. We barely know the turf, let alone the fact that huge portions of the barrier are either nasty desert, walled, or defended.
Also, Pakistan would be much more for the war than America [Self Defense > Attacking Pakistan from America, of course]. So American support for the war would deteriorate quickly, and there is no way you can deny that American troops would die.
Finally, just a history reminder. Pakistan has successfully defended itself from India in the past. Every time. Even at times when it was 'close to the brink', Pakistan, a nation much poorer and less populated has held off due to these factors such as military control, population density, and serious national pride [No joke].
I'm not saying America would lose, I'm sure if we tried hard enough it would be a somewhat Vietnam scenario where we either pull out or we ravage the entire country or both.
I'm also extremely sure that it wouldn't be a simple walk in the park.
Furthermore, if India does join in, this war becomes much more global and I can definitely see China and Russia picking sides, with China giving more support to Pakistan I would assume.
Yeah there's a lot of tension between China and India. But Russia would likely stay neutral, maybe sending a few covert special-forces teams or supplies. If they're attacked, they'll join sides with whoever's against their attacker.
Also, Pakistan having middle eastern allies, the missiles could come from any middle east controlled area in the world.
I doubt that they'd want nukes flying back at them.
Lastly, the India/Pakistan border is so heavily guarded that America, even with all of its military might and equipment, would suffer excessive casualties charging through it. We barely know the turf, let alone the fact that huge portions of the barrier are either nasty desert, walled, or defended.
We'd probably set up defenses along the India border and send in troops from the sea.
I'm not saying America would lose, I'm sure if we tried hard enough it would be a somewhat Vietnam scenario where we either pull out or we ravage the entire country or both.
I'm also extremely sure that it wouldn't be a simple walk in the park.
That's what I'd guess. It'll just be too unpopular to continue. Even though the numbers for Nam were promising, seeing bloody bodies on the news wasn't as nice.
population of karachi is 2.5 million and of lahore is 10 million
you can bet yourself that if Pakistan wanted, they could launch all nukes at once and load some on as cargo.
The funny thing about using nukes is that, once you start, everyone else is apt to follow. Again, I'm much more concerned that Pakistan would attempt to nuke India, or keep the nuke in-country and use it to kill invading forces (reminescent of CoD 4). Provided their missiles have the attack range to hit the US, our missile defense systems would shoot it down while its still over the Atlantic. Which is quite convienent, having that big body of water there.
Also, I doubt we would just merrily gain India.
It worked with Turkey in '03. Why not India? We're better friends with India than we ever were with Turkey, and its perfectly rational to assume that they'd let us use a few of their airfields for awhile.
Lastly, the India/Pakistan border is so heavily guarded that America, even with all of its military might and equipment, would suffer excessive casualties charging through it. We barely know the turf, let alone the fact that huge portions of the barrier are either nasty desert, walled, or defended.
In the time leading up to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein had the largest tank force of any country. His defensive lines in Kuwait and Iraq were several miles deep in some places. But we routed them like nobodys business, while recieving minimal casulties.
You seem to be placing too much emphasis on quantity. Sure, having a bunch of guns and planes and tanks is important, but its also important on whos driving them, and how advanced they are. Saddam may have outnumbered the Coalition in terms of tanks, but a T-70 can't really compare to a M1A1, even if its 5:1 against.
I'm sure if we tried hard enough it would be a somewhat Vietnam scenario where we either pull out or we ravage the entire country or both.
I think we've learned form our mistakes in Vietnam and in early Iraq. Once Petraeus came in, and we realized that we weren't fighting the insurgents, but trying to win the hearts of the people, we started to do much better.
We can't just invade Pakistan with the sole intention of turning it into a smoking crater, but if we have a legitimate reason, and the majority of the American populace supports it, I'm confident that Pakistan would fall fairly quickly.
The population of Karachi or Lahore has no bearing on a war. Not all of them are going to fit men, yet alone trained enough to fight professional soldiers. All that fact proves is that there will a lot of collateral damage.
If what you say is true, then what about police officers? My uncle is a cop, and he has had to shoot a person to save an innocent civillian. So does that mean my Uncle is worth less as a person, even those his actions helped to save a life?
He is not worth less as a person, but I would rather see a policeman die, than a civilian. Because of the same reason I stated before
about 11 yrs ago military training at high school level was mandatory so most population has basic training
after that there come jihad organisation with munition pile ups enough for a city or so noe
lets take an example
usa attacks with lets say around 1 million soldiers now
suppose pak is losing the war
pakistan somehow nukes some american city with population around 10million
suppose 5 million perish in its blast
now if america retaliates with a nuke of its own that will not only perish its army of 1 million but a nuke blown in pakistan will also effect china and afghanistan, iran and india (depending on the location of blast)
now america is a big country it is very unlikely that that nuking some place in it will effect any other country around it
so,
nuking america will b relatively easy for pakistan
than other away around (other than technological difference)
@maverick pak army is one of the most well trained armies in the
world
LONG STORY SHORT
such war will prove like stalingrad for USA
If Pakistan throws a single nuke, america will probably react and nuke every single city in Pakistan, and the war would probably affect many other countries if not the whole world. I don't know much about pakistan's government, but it's probably smart enough to not wish a world nuclear apocalypse...
@DSM
I will totally disagree with you just wearing a uniform does not degrades somone from being human.Its true they are payed for risking their lives but human life can not measured in monetary terms.U have no idea how it feels in front of a bullet storm neither have i but i know how it feels to see death reaching out for u as i had few close calls of my own (like driver losing control of car at 100mph and its heading towards canal) and i'm sure soldiers have to face more dangers than that.
pak army is one of the most well trained armies in the
world
mind giving us a source on that?
also i'm fairly sure that America would just bomb Pakistan into submission, then send in troops to clean up. and we also have some pretty good missile defense systems. Plus depending on who instigated the fight, we'd have the UN on our side
He is not worth less as a person, but I would rather see a policeman die, than a civilian. Because of the same reason I stated before
If he is not worth less as a person, than how can you maintain that a cop should die over a civilian? Over the mere fact that the cop happens to be carrying a firearm as apart of his job?
Something as simple as possessing a firearm does in no way justify the belittlement of his or her humanity.
pakistan somehow nukes some american city with population around 10million
Highly unlikely. The National Missile Defense system of the US was designed to counter such an attack as put forth by Pakistan. A few warships with Aegis missiles situated in the Indian Ocean, and any Pakistani missiles will be bidding a swift farewell to this world.
Besides, in a US invasion of Pakistan, what would be the number one strategic goal of US command? Eliminating Pakistans Nuclear threat. Most likely, through the use of Drone missile strikes and Stealth Bomber strikes.
now if america retaliates with a nuke of its own that will not only perish its army of 1 million but a nuke blown in pakistan will also effect china and afghanistan, iran and india
Seeing as how the President has to authorise the usage of Nuclear arms, I doubt even Obama would be stupid enough to blow up his own army. There would be a withdrawal of troops, the Pakistanis would think they had won, and then they get a 'smashing' surprise. Hahaha.
nuking america will b relatively easy for pakistan
Yup. Lets just ignore the vast technological differences between the two nations. Lets just ignore the missile defense system of the us. Turning a blind eye is fun!
pak army is one of the most well trained armies in the
world
Wanna bring up some facts that support this? Because I was under the impression that the top armies in the world are the US, the UK, Israel, China, and then may be Russia or France (I know, who would have thought?).
On China: Please tell me why China would back a backwater country as opposed to their number one trade partner? Assuming China would back Pakistan is a huge assumption, and one of little bearing.
On nukes: I already pointed out that their nukes can't hit us. Shut up about it.
Assuming China would back Pakistan is a huge assumption, and one of little bearing.
They probably wouldn't team up, but they'd have an excuse to send some hate at India.
nuking america will b relatively easy for pakistan
No, just because we have the most nukes doesn't mean we have the least nuclear defenses. In fact, the USA probably has the most nuclear defenses in the world since it was said earlier in the thread that the USA is helping to defend countries in Europe with nuclear defenses. Compare launching nukes on the US to an exterminator with a real heavy coat. Your missiles are the bees and/or wasps, the US is the exterminator with the real heavy coat, see what I'm getting at here?
pak army is one of the most well trained armies in the
world
USA is the most well-trained army in the world, which beats one of the most, last time I checked.
such war will prove like stalingrad for USA
I think I just disproved such a statement.
But also, Stalingrad had the Russian Winter on it's side. The Germans froze. This was also when clothes weren't designed very well, so heat escaped very easily if you weren't wearing 5 layers. Pakistan doesn't get too hot, Afghanistan is hotter. And the US troops are already used to the desert heat so Pakistan would be almost like a visit back home. The US troops uniforms are also designed to ventilate, so it'll be even cooler.
You must be logged in to post a reply!