MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
No one is denying how modern warfare is fought, or how good the F-16 is. Anyone will tell you that in order to occupy a country physically you need to capture and hold ground. This is my point. Even when invading Iraq, the US, with all it's sophisticated assets, still need to fight Iraqi Army on the ground. The Pakistan Army is not the Iraqi Army.
Hi,
That is old news---. Those days of holding ground are long gone---now you go in and totally destroy the infrastructure of the country. Non nuclear weapons are a 100 times more lethal and accurate and with a lesser number of weapons---you can totally demolish the abilities and capabilities of a nation from far away---.
Achieving limited objectives is something (with its own set of consequences) in war plans but taking over a country size of Pakistan is another. It is not possible for US with her might to go after Pakistan on ground.
There is significant risk even with limited objective interference also. US don't know location of each and every warhead, what they will miss will be dropped on US bases and allies.
Just one nuclear warhead dropped on a US base will ruin the majority party's prospects for a decade or more, it is just a non starter, only thing keeping Iran and North Korea safe is the possibility of actual operational WMD's.
Hi,
What is keeping north korea safe is that they are going to be a future christian / born again nation.
What is keeping Iran safe is that it keeps stabbing the other muslim world and does the job that the americans don't want to do.