What's new

China Unlikely to Confront United States Military Intervention in PakistaN

Yeah, we are unlikely to directly involve into any conflict.

That's why we gonna fully support Pakistan to enhance their nuclear assets.

Only a Pakistan with its strong nuclear deterrence can fully protect themselves. :tup:
 
.
The acid test of the substantiveness of Pakistan playing the China Card would lie in the certainty of China militarily intervening to forestall a United States military intervention in Pakistan. The way things are unfolding in Pakistan where the Pakistan Army is ill at ease to adapt to the twin challenges of loss of domestic public support and a trust-deficit with the United States may drive it into an adverse situation where the United States may be egged on by Pakistan Army’s delinquencies to opt for a military intervention in Pakistan to defang Pakistan Army’s nuclear weapons arsenal.

The crucial question to be considered is that in such an eventuality whether China would step in militarily in favor of Pakistan to confront the United States, something which the Pakistan Army would ardently hope for.

Some reputed strategic analysts have opined that if ever there is a war between China and the United Sates it would not be over Taiwan but over Pakistan. It does make a lot of sense for such an assertion when China’s oversized strategic stakes and investments in Pakistan are considered and all those would stand endangered should a United States military intervention against Pakistan ever occur. In terms of strategic eventualities nothing should ever be ruled out.

However there is one major strategic complication for China should it feel inclined or be drawn into a military conflict with the United States over Pakistan. This is that such a military confrontation of China with the United States over Pakistan would not be restricted to South Asian confines. China would then have to be prepared for a two-front war with the United States, the first in Pakistan and South Asia and this situation forcing the United Sates to open a second front in East Asia.

The major military and strategic question is whether China can afford a Two Front War with the United States and that too over Pakistan?

In such a ‘Two Front War’ in which the United States would be pushed into by China, dangers exist of the United States exploiting the simmering unrest in Tibet and Xingjian. Once again I would like to reassert that China has no ‘natural allies’ other than North Korea and Pakistan to stand by its side. The United States has many more options in this regard.

On balance therefore, it would be strategically foolish for China to let Pakistan Army belabor under the strategic impression that it has a substantive China Card to play against the United States. It would still be more foolish for the Pakistan Army to presume that the Islamic World would side with it in such a conflagration against the United States.

Concluding Observations

In the current scenario following the outcry within Pakistan against the Pakistan Army, even implicit references to playing the China Card by Pakistan Army amounts to bluff and bluster. All logical analyses point to the unlikelihood of China honoring any playing of the China Card by the Pakistan Army against the United States.

Within Pakistan there is a lot of discussion that Samuel Huntington’s thesis that the Sinnic Civilization would ally with the Islamic World against the Christian World is coming out true but one wonders whether the outcome would be in favor of the Sinnic Civilization-Islamic World combine and moreso when the Islamic World itself is unlikely to side actively with Pakistan against the United States.

The Pakistan Army has to come to grips with realities of its strategic asymmetries and limitations. Pakistan Army’s nuclear weapons arsenal are neither a “strategic shield” nor a “strategic spear” and nor can China realistically provide a security umbrella as cover for Pakistan’s strategic waywardness especially when directed against the United States.

Pakistan Army’s China Card seemingly is not substantial as China for many years to come would not be able to afford a ‘Two Front War’ with the United States and certainly not over Pakistan.

Pakistan Playing the China Card: How Substantial?

Written by an Indian, let me print it, I just ran out of toilet paper and not in a mood to go to the grocery store. This artcile will definately help.
 
.
Saddam did not have the capability to hit and destroy most of the oil infrastructure in the Gulf - the best he could do was to lob some inaccurate Scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

And if the Israelis are going to end up nuking the Arab States because of a Pakistani attack, then that ends up serving Pakistan's purpose in terms of making the world understand that a war imposed on Pakistan could end up escalating into a regional catastrophe, and with that a global economic catastrophe.

huh? where did you get Israelis will nuke Arabs from a US/ Pak scenario? I'm still scratching my head going- what is your military strategy? shoot a few missiles at whom? A war imposed on Pakistan will be finished in days by the Americans.
 
.
huh? where did you get Israelis will nuke Arabs from a US/ Pak scenario? I'm still scratching my head going- what is your military strategy? shoot a few missiles at whom? A war imposed on Pakistan will be finished in days by the Americans.

I am not talking about a 'military strategy' in terms of 'fighting a war imposed on Pakistan by the US/NATO, I am offering my opinion on what a potential 'deterrent strategy' could look like. If the world understands that war imposed on Pakistan by the US/NATO (a war that Pakistan would, militarily at least, lose) would result in the entire region going up in flames, especially the region's oil production, storage and transport infrastructure, along with the potential of the Israelis nuking the Arab States (and Pakistan) as a response to a Pakistani nuclear strike, then the world is far less likely to support the idea of war against Pakistan, unless Pakistan does something extremely horrible, such as an unprovoked nuclear strike on another nation.

The reference to Israel 'nuking the Arab States if nuked by Pakistan' was raised by another member - I was simply saying that IF the Israeli policy is to respond in such a way, then that ends up strengthening Pakistan's deterrent in terms of war against Pakistan not staying limited to Pakistan.
 
.
I am not talking about a 'military strategy' in terms of 'fighting a war imposed on Pakistan by the US/NATO, I am offering my opinion on what a potential 'deterrent strategy' could look like. If the world understands that war imposed on Pakistan by the US/NATO (a war that Pakistan would, militarily at least, lose) would result in the entire region going up in flames, especially the region's oil production, storage and transport infrastructure, along with the potential of the Israelis nuking the Arab States (and Pakistan) as a response to a Pakistani nuclear strike, then the world is far less likely to support the idea of war against Pakistan, unless Pakistan does something extremely horrible, such as an unprovoked nuclear strike on another nation.

The reference to Israel 'nuking the Arab States if nuked by Pakistan' was raised by another member - I was simply saying that IF the Israeli policy is to respond in such a way, then that ends up strengthening Pakistan's deterrent in terms of war against Pakistan not staying limited to Pakistan.

Doubtful that that would happen. Israel has nothing to gain by this. No Arab state would stand by Pakistan in any case, least of all in a warlike situation. The closest that would come would be KSA, even then they would offer to mediate or whatnot.

IMO, were the US to decide on waging war on Pakistan, they would definitely take out Pakistani nukes, or lock them such that Pakistani authorities(military) is unable to access them.

Now, when i say 'take out' the nukes, most people would assume a spec ops kind of thing - all razzle and dazzle. But they could go for a variety of options, they could incite rebellion in Pakistan, have one general take over, or have a politician take over and assert authority over the military to an economic meltdown with money comming in exchange for things. You have to know that US it the numero uno player in Pakistan. Or it could be something much more subtle that i cant think of. But the point remains that were the US to decide on waging war, they would only do it once they take the nukes out of use.
 
.
Doubtful that that would happen. Israel has nothing to gain by this. No Arab state would stand by Pakistan in any case, least of all in a warlike situation. The closest that would come would be KSA, even then they would offer to mediate or whatnot.

IMO, were the US to decide on waging war on Pakistan, they would definitely take out Pakistani nukes, or lock them such that Pakistani authorities(military) is unable to access them.

Now, when i say 'take out' the nukes, most people would assume a spec ops kind of thing - all razzle and dazzle. But they could go for a variety of options, they could incite rebellion in Pakistan, have one general take over, or have a politician take over and assert authority over the military to an economic meltdown with money comming in exchange for things. You have to know that US it the numero uno player in Pakistan. Or it could be something much more subtle that i cant think of. But the point remains that were the US to decide on waging war, they would only do it once they take the nukes out of use.

I'm interested to know how you arrive at this opinion when the CIA say that they can't do this.

"We don't have, frankly, the intelligence to know where they all are located."
He added that the US is confident that Pakistani government has a "pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons".

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons - Telegraph

It's plain as daylight that Pakistan's nuclear weapons cannot be taken away, locked away or anything else. They are under the complete control of the military and that remains so.
 
.
The worst thing in the world would be to attempt to take out the nukes, Pakistan might then go for the Samson option and with the new hydrogen bomb equipped MIRV missiles that could end in something infinitivaly worse.
 
.
Written by an Indian, let me print it, I just ran out of toilet paper and not in a mood to go to the grocery store. This artcile will definately help.

Lol I thought you guys used water, another fact reveal.
 
. .
Pakistan might then go for the Samson option and with the new hydrogen bomb equipped MIRV missiles that could end in something infinitivaly worse.

:rofl: :rofl: when did pakistan develop hydrogen bombs and mirv missiles..?
 
.
:rofl: :rofl: when did pakistan develop hydrogen bombs and mirv missiles..?

We have 2 Pu reactors in Khushab already running - with another two being built - we have a tritium facility and a reprocessing plant running - cold tests have already occurred - Shaheen 2 is being tested with MIRV technology.

On 20 February, Pakistan's Prime Minister visited the Khushab nuclear complex, along with senior military officers and top officials from the country's nuclear weapons program. The Prime Minister is reported to have congratulated Khushab engineers for completing important projects, announced one month bonus pay, and approved new projects. He was accompanied by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director General of the Strategic Plans Division, and the Chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.

The Prime Minister's visit may mark the completion of work on Pakistan's second plutonium production reactor. Khushab is the home of the country's first plutonium production reactor (Khushab-I), which started work in 1998, and is the site where two new reactors are under construction. The construction of Khushab II appears from satellite imagery to have started in 2001-2002, while work on Khushab III seems to have started in 2005 or 2006.


http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/02/pakistan_may_have_complet.html
 
.
Mr Somnath your comments are very provocative. So who decides which states can have nukes and which states cannot. Surely not an individual eg you. it would also be unfair to have one country's government or country decide. The Chinese could very well say Indians shouldnt have nukes. Lots of states are unhappy that Israel has nukes. surely you are not suggesting that brute force should be used?

i actually agree with what you have said .
 
.
And in the process, trigger their nuclear response against every Arab and Muslim country around the world as their Samson Option dictates. Here's a quiz for you; The Arab world is full of military-obsessed dictators having an aggressive ruling style and oil sheikhs that can afford latest weapons from some or the other corners of the world to take over the tiny Israel. Why do you think they've stopped trying after 60s? Figure it out.



AM, Read my above response to nuclearpak. Your spreading of war against Israel will invite doom for all your fellow Arab and Islamic countries. It is the Israeli doctrine to do that. Why do you think no one walks over and takes their country from them?

its not like they never tried .. they tried but lost every time . then good sense prevailed . not many people in positions of power think they can bomb a different country and get away with it .
 
.
The worst thing in the world would be to attempt to take out the nukes, Pakistan might then go for the Samson option and with the new hydrogen bomb equipped MIRV missiles that could end in something infinitivaly worse.

Since when does Pakistan have H-bombs?
 
.
Since when does Pakistan have H-bombs?
Did u even know tht we had a nuke untill we blew up the chagai moutain? did u even know we had A-100s till some guy took a pic frm some ex-, did u even knew we had a tactical nuke MLRS till we showed it on national tv,did u even know tht we were woring on an MRV till head of NESCOM mistakenly talked abt it on TV........ There r lots of thing kept in secret by the establishment.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom