Yes, they don't have second strike policy, how did you conclude from that they will be crazy enough to use nukes against another nuclear state? And let me make one thing clear, these no-first use policies mean nothing. Will a nuked nation go to them later with a piece of paper saying, "Hey you promised no first strike?"
Really?
For 50 years, the Pentagon's war planners have structured the U.S. nuclear arsenal according to the goal of deterring a nuclear attack on the United States and, if necessary, winning a nuclear war by launching a preemptive strike that would destroy an enemy's nuclear forces. For these purposes, the United States relies on a nuclear triad comprising strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and ballistic-missile-launching submarines (known as SSBNs). The triad reduces the odds that an enemy could destroy all U.S. nuclear forces in a single strike, even in a surprise attack, ensuring that the United States would be able to launch a devastating response.
&
The current and future U.S. nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.
The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States' declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." To this end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.
Source:
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy | Foreign Affairs
Since 9/11 event, USA have developed an aggressive nuclear policy for so-called "rogue states." You can learn more about this policy from this article:
US plans for first-strike nuclear attacks against seven countries - Telegraph
On the basis of the aforementioned policy, USA continues to diversify its nuclear assets to fit different roles in a conflict.
Therefore, your assumption that USA will never consider nuclear response for a nation, irrespective of circumstances and geo-political situation, is misplaced and unrealistic.
I already mentioned in my statement they will not do it "however certain they are of destroying pakistani assets". Is Pakistan capable of this? Shortest answer: Irrelevant.
Your article was completely irrelevant on how USA will be able to recover from losing a major city to nuclear strikes.
I cited an example that demonstrates US resolve and potential to overcome a massive economic melt-down or shock event; the 2008 economic meltdown. This is the not the first time; US recovered from the Great Depression event of the 1930s as well.
If USA looses a city to a nuclear explosion, this event is likely to have economic implications (scale and scope may vary according to the targeted city), but US can economically recover from such an event. You may consider experience of Japan for this matter; Japan economically recovered from the destruction of WW-II even with the loss of 2 cities to direct nuclear fire.
Japan is currently coping with the economic implications of Fukushima disaster in its mainland which resulted from a deadly Earthquake; USA have also aided Japan in this recovery effort by sending robots to Japan to handle Fukushima disaster on the ground, and other means.
Germany had already lost when it decided to attack Russians. US was already providing military aid to all allied nations to the maximum. These nations included Russia, China, UK. A little more of history books and a little less of Spielberg.
I am well-informed about WW-II related developments but thanks for the advice. Your claim is metaphoric in nature, Germany didn't loose in WW-II due to (exclusive) conflict with USSR, multiple factors contributed to German loss. Germany lost due to combined effort of Allied powers involving USA, Russia, UK, and rebel forces of different nations.
Among the allied powers, USA played a vital role in defeat of all Axis powers in WW-II via both direct and indirect methods. USA provided military equipment to USSR to make sure that USSR would not succumb to German occupation (FYI:
Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans) and directly joined the Allied war-effort to defeat German forces in 1944 by dispatching a huge military force to Europe, using UK as a base of operations (i.e. D-Day event).
In simple terms, Germany couldn't afford to tackle the combined might of Allied powers.
Afghanistan was already destroyed. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, still right now is under Iran's thumb. A total strategic defeat for USA. Weakened Taliban? They are negotiating with the Taliban. In fact they are accepting almost the same terms they were offered soon after 9/11, the only difference is the 3000 dead Americans.
Truth is two field armies were defeated. USA has zero influence in Iraq right now, and Taliban are poised to be back in control of Afghanistan, with USA as their unwilling partners.
I still don't get what all of that has to do with Pakistan.
My point is about the consequences of attacking USA. Details of WOT related developments are irrelevant. In any case, your tall claims shall be refuted with some dose of reality:-
War in Afghanistan and its implications for Pakistan
Afghanistan, already reeling from the effects of earlier conflicts, suffered another major setback from ODF in the context of decay of its Taliban ideology, additional bloodshed, and further destabilization of the country. Whatever gains were made under Taliban rule
in all fronts, ended-up in vain. In addition, war in Afghanistan hit Pakistan hard
on several fronts as well. Pakistan became a victim of menace of terrorism and have suffered billions of dollars of loss in pure economic terms so far. Pakistani military have also suffered great loss in both equipment and manpower in its effort to contain cross-border activities of the militants across the Durand Line. Furthermore, many Pakistani civilians have perished due to bomb blasts and suicide attacks across the nation. You may tout that Afghanistan didn't had to loose much from ODF, but think about the setbacks that Pakistan had to endure from it.
The conflict and instability in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks and their regional implications had very negative repercussions for the years following the US invasion of Afghanistan not only saw a huge influx of Afghan refugees across the border into Pakistan but also witnessed a sudden spike in the frequency and scale of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The cumulative impact of these developments adversely impacted the overall growth rate in all major sectors of the economy. Pakistan continues to pay a heavy price both in the economic and security terms due to this situation and a substantial portion of precious national resources both men and material, have been diverted to address the emerging security challenges for the last several years. The rise of violent extremism and increase in terrorism in Pakistan due to instability in Afghanistan not only caused serious damage to Pakistan’s economy but has also been responsible for wide-spread human suffering due to indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population. This situation disrupted Pakistan’s normal economic and trading activities which not only resulted in higher costs of business but also created disruptions in the production cycles, resulting in significant delays in meeting the export orders around the globe. As a result, Pakistani products have gradually lost their market share to their competitors. Consequently, economic growth slowed down, demand for imports reduced with declined tax collection and inflows of foreign investment. Investment outflow and negative trends of out sourcing of capital in Pakistan has further added to the woes of dwindling performance of the export oriented industry.
Recommended read:
http://finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_14/Annex_3.pdf
Some information about Pakistani military losses:
In Its Own War on Terror, Pakistan Piles Up Heavy Losses - WSJ
In-fact, the official figures of Pakistani losses are understated. I know this from personal contacts with Pakistani servicemen.
In addition, US utterly shat on Pakistani sovereignty by conducting unauthorized military operations inside Pakistan on several occasions throughout the course of war in Afghanistan. Hamari auqaat diskha dee.
War in Iraq and influence of Iran
I know that Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11, but US destroyed it in sheer anger under the garb of WOT (a stark reminder of consequences of attacks on US mainland).
Iranian influence over Iraq is a by-product of Iraqi shia populace that colluded with Iran in its efforts to counter Saddam (prior to the US invasion in 2003) and US influence (after the US invasion in 2003). US interests in the Middle East have always been about GCC, Turkey, and Israel. US did take interest in Iraq when Saddam chose to attack Iran, but US perceived Iraq as a threat to its interests in the Middle East when Saddam challenged GCC and occupied one of its member states (i.e. Kuwait); US crippled Iraq with direct military intervention afterwards.
Iraqi populace is splintered on sectarian and religious grounds:-
1. Shia
2. Sunni
3. Kurd
Iran influences Shia segment of Iraq, and US influences Kurd segment of Iraq. Sunni segment continues to defy both external influences; ISIS is an example. USA is back in Iraq for contending with ISIS and additional geo-political aims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/us-troops-back-in-iraq-train-a-force-to-fight-isis.html?_r=0.
In short, your "total strategic defeat" claim is shortsighted and utter BS.
Weakened Taliban?
Yes, (weakened) Taliban. Mark my words. Taliban have not just declined as a military force (splintered into several factions) but also have declined as an ideological force (
de-humanized from prolonged exposure to a bloody conflict).
- Negotiation effort does not implies defeat. As an example, Allied powers attempted negotiations with Nazi Germany during WW-II. Similarly, Pakistan have attempted negotiations with TTP militant faction several times.
- US is willing to recognize Taliban as a political force in Afghanistan on the condition that Taliban accepts democratic Afghan setup and disassociates itself from the menace of Terrorism. And even if USA leaves Afghanistan to its fate after withdrawal, Taliban is not in the position to challenge US interests in Asia at large and its influence will be effectively contained within Afghanistan by virtue of proxies and neighboring countries that include Iran, Pakistan, and China.
- 3000 dead Americans? How many Taliban are dead in comparison? Lot more.
-----
We can continue to argue about WOT related developments but you are mistaken if you think that USA is willing to compromise on its long-term interests in Asia at large due to situation of Afghanistan and Iraq; USA is taking its time for fulfillment of its long-term interests just like it did in the COLD WAR against USSR.
As a reminder, USA suffered setbacks in some conflicts of COLD WAR but eventually won the war in a span of 50 years by crippling and choking USSR with combination of smart politicking and military operations.
WOT is just the beginning, and Islamic countries should be worried. US defense industry thrives from wars actually. Following sources contain alarming revelations:
Peace is the Enemy of the US Military Industrial Complex | Global Research
The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry - Fortune
The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
Again you missed the context. I started my statement by saying USA has more than enough nukes for Pakistan. And my statement wasn't regarding the logistics or how to plan it. What I said was USA will never risk such a situation. Ever.
And my argument is that your assumption is misplaced.
US have aggressive designs for so-called "rogue states." In-fact, Pakistan is the first nation whom US threatened with dire consequences after 9/11 event, read Musharraf's book titled
In the Line of Fire.
The nature, scale and scope of any US strategic response to Pakistan depends upon the geo-political situation of the era. If Pakistan wishes to challenge US interests in Asia at large, expect massive retaliation in response. Pakistan have already been a victim of COLD WAR related developments and should strive for economic independence from USA to counter US influence and pursue the path of stability and prosperity.
Pakistan simply cannot afford to be part of US-led wars in South Asia any more, or even at its receiving end.
Paper tiger? They have taken over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and can now add Yemen as the latest addition. The only real pain came after UNO sanctions, even that hasn't slowed Iran much.
When have Iran taken over Iraq? You are overreaching here. Iran cannot even stop ISIS on its own, let alone take over Iraq
proper. Iraqi Sunni and Kurd segments will not tolerate Iranian influence within their sphere of existence.
Additionally:
- Syria is a mess, if you haven't noticed. Syrian civil war have resulted in destruction of much of the nation and crippled Syrian economy and military capability.
- Israel have Lebanon under check. In-fact, Israel have taken care of Hamas in the 2008 offensive, lessons learned from 2006 war with Hezbollah proved to be valuable for Israel for tackling asymmetric challenges. Israel is now ready fro Hezbollah as well, state of preparedness revealed in some reports.
- Yemen is another example of a mess.
In-fact, haven't you noticed a pattern? Where-ever Iran ventures, destruction and instability follows? Is this good for stability of Islamic bloc at large?
No.
In-fact, Iran is unwittingly contributing to US interests in the Middle East in the long-term. The more Islamic nations are crippled around GCC, the easier it is for US to benefit from such developments and plan destruction of Iran itself.
Americans are masters of deception, deceit, and divide-and-conquer politicking. Do not forget this.
Read what I said. They can sanction you in their own congress. The Russian sanctions took a very long time, and they still haven't been able to rally the Europeans. If anything, the Ukraine crisis has exposed serious cracks in the Alliance.
Doesn't matters, US have the potential to sanction any nation independently of UNO. And US sanctions are quick to materialize:
Ukraine and Russia Sanctions
Also, Russian intervention in Ukraine and Georgia have created a clear split between NATO and Russia in the matters of geo-political interests. More information here:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/201...ine-crisis-NATO-Russia-relations/EN/index.htm
NATO is no longer under the illusion that Russia can be a reliable partner of NATO.
You are the one on the "AMERICA!" high horse.
No, I am on the horse of "ground realities."
You may continue to delude yourself into thinking that US is loosing in WOT but the truth is that US thrives on gullibility of individuals that are in abundance within Islamic bloc, and this would prove to be undoing of many Islamic nations unfortunately in years to come.
Read your own link. I am sure the 10m in the ten years was what kept us from chewing our own shoes.
Even Bush says Musharaf was playing a double game. Read it in his book. So no it was not just Kiyani.
That military aid came to Pakistan, irrespective of what you believe.
Maybe Musharraf did, but how have the double-game played out for us in the long-term?
Not well.
And Pakistan has taken actions against them as well. Even their generals say so. But i guess you know the real deal, right?
Indeed, Pakistan have. However, Pakistan's situation is not rosy in the matter of its policy concerning Afghanistan and USA. Both are failures.
Who said soldiers were sleeping? They couldn't have done anything even if they were awake. Look what became of USA afterwards. The new supply routes cost them billions and billions. Their military economy is in such bad shape they don't know whether or not to keep the A-10's active or to scrap them for F-35s, this is just one of many examples i can give you. I am sure they regret their actions.
You are confusing American military budget related cuts due to economic crises of 2008 with situation in Afghanistan. US could afford to open Northern Supply Route for Afghanistan after experiencing crises in Pakistan, and have maintained it till date.
US military officials planned to retire A-10 aircraft long ago, but US politicians continue to deter this plan.
As for the military budget related cuts, US military is undergoing transition from cost-munching juggernaut to cost-effective potent force. Robotic and Laser technologies are a step towards this development. F-35 is a costly venture so something have to give.
Sure. But they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart right? Please take your jingoism some place with fewer sane people.
And when have I asserted that US have proven to a good ally of Pakistan? It never was. We cannot blame US entirely for its political shift vis-a-vis Pakistan since we do not have shortage of political snakes on our end either, but I also acknowledge the fact that Pakistan have been a victim of US strategic ambitions so far.
Do keep in mind that countries pursue
interests and alliances are most often temporary developments which are often mistaken for friendship. Pakistan should learn to function independently of (unhealthy) external influence of any nation including US and China, if it wishes to become a genuinely strong and prosperous nation. To achieve this, Pakistan needs to take a long break from regional conflicts that it can avoid, explore and promote its industrial potential, promote education, and make efforts for cultural grooming of the nation by shunning corruption and militant politics to achieve its strategic ambitions.
Pakistan should become an independent and prosperous nation (Economically and Militarily) that is largely free from all forms of (unhealthy) external influences, maintains amicable relationship with most nations, and does not contributes to instability in the region. Pakistan also needs to revisit its policy towards Israel, we cannot afford more enemies in an era when India is rising and attracting global investment.
