What's new

What Would a Hypothetical U.S.-Pakistan War Look Like? - by Kyle Mizokami

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Pakistan's case: a massive insurgency that could even gain access to nuclear weapons
Right now, amid all the Corona related panic in the US and the struggle for access to PPEs and ventilators amongst the US states, a massive insurgency in the US seems more likely than a one in Pakistan.
 
2017-03-23T120000Z_421047922_RC12E64D87E0_RTRMADP_3_PAKISTAN-MILITARY%20copy.jpg

One word: Hell.

by Kyle Mizokami

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?

In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.

A prolonged U.S. air campaign would be a difficult proposition. Unlike past campaigns against Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, Washington would find regional allies who could provide air bases a difficult proposition. Pakistan enjoys warm relations with most of the Sunni states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both of whom have air bases capable of hosting U.S. tactical aircraft, as well as Saudi Arabia and Oman.


A U.S. air campaign directed against Pakistan would largely consist of bomber, carrier, and cruise missiles strikes. Strategic bombers, including the B-1, B-2, and B-52 would conduct strikes from the continental United States and the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Only these aircraft have the range to strike targets in Pakistan from friendly bases. Depending on the level of international support, long-range bombers could also launch from the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford, improving sortie rates.

The U.S. Navy would play a major role. U.S. forces would neutralize the relatively weak Pakistani Navy. While the Pakistani Navy operates about one hundred ships, it has only a handful of surface combatants of frigate size or larger, and just five aging diesel-electric submarines. Once these are neutralized the U.S. Navy could bring its aircraft carriers closer to the coastline, conducting airstrikes against military targets. Surface warships and nuclear-powered attack submarines would contribute by launching swarms of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles against highly defended targets.

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

The Pakistani Army consists of nearly 800,000 active-duty personnel, with significant reserves totaling more than a half-million. Much if not most of this force is arrayed against the border with India, but the U.S. invasion route would actually pass through many of Pakistan’s forward-deployed forces. While U.S. forces would be qualitatively superior, it would be a grinding fight that could be interrupted at any time by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan. India has seldom cooperated with the United States in military operations, declining to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. India’s cooperation would largely depend on the circumstance, the most likely being the U.S. joining an Indian-led coalition against Pakistan.

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072






TBH This article is VERY poorly written. For a start, the author fails to address his points coherently. The second biggest flaw is that he uses NO cross references to confirm any of his claims. Thirdly, he has made many punctuation and grammatical errors in his writing. As a teacher, I would grade him a pass at year 9, KS4.
 
this is assuming Pakistan does not have ICBM.

Iranian attacks on US basis exposed the real Power US has. How many basis US has that are in Pakistan's reach considering Pakistan doesnt now have ICBM
 
That is NOT correct; the US ground forces are NOT capable of running over just about any ground foe, let alone a highly skilled, professional and dedicated Military such as PakMil.

In the event of a conflict, PakMil will endeavor to neutralize the Bases from which USAF or USN Combat/Bombing Aircraft take off from, these will require use of various Missiles (Cruise, Ballistic etc.) and other covert options including the option to target the capitals and military of countries which assist any attack on Pakistan. In any eventuality where there are US boots on the ground...........well, I can guarantee that the US public will forget about Vietnam!!!!

And finally, there is the Nuclear option. There is just NO way to destroy all the Nuclear Warheads or delivery systems that we have..........and Nuclear is THE deterrence that we have. If the US really wants to destroy us, all it has to do is strangle us financially.
I agree. That's why I said weeks or months. They would choke off supplies of oil, of imported goods and destroy it economically as well.
 
I agree. That's why I said weeks or months. They would choke off supplies of oil, of imported goods and destroy it economically as well.

That too will be very tricky because once Pakistan slips into the other side, we can get as much oil as we need from Iran via pipeline. Everything else, we can get from countries which are not in the US influence including China and Russia.
 
Even i saw another thread, what will happen if India China go for a war.
 
I'll summarize this for you absolute oxymoron:

KABOOMM on this side
KABOOMM on that side
AAAaaaaa from the people on this side
AAAaaaaa from the people on that side
Nara e XYZ as awar cry from the army on this side
Jay XYZ as a war cry from the army on that side
Loray lag gaye from the people on this side
Tui phat gai from the people on that side
Hum jang jeet gaye from the politicans on both sides
 
National Interest has an infatuation with writing about Pakistan. Last I checked, half a dozen articles just on the JFT.
 
TBH This article is VERY poorly written. For a start, the author fails to address his points coherently. The second biggest flaw is that he uses NO cross references to confirm any of his claims. Thirdly, he has made many punctuation and grammatical errors in his writing. As a teacher, I would grade him a pass at year 9, KS4.
This article is written keeping in mind the gullible nature of many Pakistanis. National interest site receive its funding from Bharti to do its lobbying in a way to show pakistan in a bad light to American public.

I have some veteran colleagues who were in United States military, special forces, navy, marines, etc. None of them have bad views towards Pakistan. Surprisingly all of them believe that the media is fooling them.

National Interest has an infatuation with writing about Pakistan. Last I checked, half a dozen articles just on the JFT.
Read my post.
 
This article is written keeping in mind the gullible nature of many Pakistanis. National interest site receive its funding from Bharti to do its lobbying in a way to show pakistan in a bad light to American public.

I have some veteran colleagues who were in United States military, special forces, navy, marines, etc. None of them have bad views towards Pakistan. Surprisingly all of them believe that the media is fooling them.


Read my post.




Ultimately, they all have their roots from the biggest purveyors of propaganda on the entire planet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764
 
Lol. Nah. Just a fact. If it makes you feel any better, they can do the same to India too. Just being realistic.
keep dreaming... no restriction....isn't strange to see an Indian pretending to be a realistic8-)
 
Ultimately, they all have their roots from the biggest purveyors of propaganda on the entire planet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764

Check this out

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/16/india-lobbying-us-congress/

This one shows about how they plan to build their image and destroy Pakistan's image,

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/india-hires-us-lobbying-firm-to-build-image/ar-BBXULLa

They even spend top dollars so that united states doesn't kick out Tommy Kumar and John Patel, professionals.

https://qz.com/india/1223460/fearin...a-stance-indian-it-firms-splurge-on-lobbying/

What frustrates me is that many Pakistanis have no clue about Indian game.

Even on Xinjiang issue many clueless pakistanis post crap against China without realizing the facts. To me Xinjiang issue is resemblance of Balochistan and India wasn't to highlight it to pressure China into pulling itself out of Kashmir issue and also to fool gullible Pakistanis into criticizing China which can damage the relations and then India can rip pakistan apart.
 
Somebody literally wrote an article on The National Interest about a dream he has last night.
Can I also do that?

I had a dream yesterday in which I saw that the Soviets survived the cold war and were still hostile to the Germans. Just before an other war between them, the Germans revived Hitler from his grave using the Lost Ark along with an army of Zombie Nazis so they can invade the Soviets in the winter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom