Not my point. Not even convinced that it was shot down since it is largely intact.
Was not specifically referring to the said incident.
Silly point. The drone over Iran was unarmed, it was purely being used for surveillance. A preparation for an attack that may or may not happen, if you will. Not so in Pakistan, the drones are armed & are already in a position to take out targets & that could include any threat that might show itself.
Not quite. Firstly the drones are in as adequate a position to launch attacks on Iran as they are for Pakistan. Check a geographic map (The drones arent in constant flight over these regions. They take off, do their business then land back). Secondly if your confusing the capabilities of these drones with those of a fighter jet then you are seriously mistaken. These UAVs have little to no self protection mechanisms and no air to air capabilities at all. They are primarily suited against light targets with little to no air defense capabilities. Their primary mode of operation is ingress--> launch missiles--> egress. These birds are slow, not maneuverable and lacking any substantial amount of munitions. Furthermore the SAMs and AA missiles which are in use today would take out a Predator Reaper long before it would ever get a chance to achieve a target lock (Check out the Iraqi video you'll understand better).
Don't waste your time with sermonising on points that I have not made. I never suggested that drones cannot be shot down, however some drones do have the capacity to strike back & there is plenty of doubt on the will of the Pakistani establishment to actually take on the Americans not withstanding any grandiose statements which are deliberately publicised. There was nothing stopping the Pakistani establishment from quietly spreading the word internally & informing the Americans, again discreetly about their intentions. Seems more of a case of whipping up emotions than an actual military deterrent. Plenty of reason given past history that Pakistan won't go beyond talking, little to the contrary.
Now that is silly. Especially when considering what has happened in the past. It would have been much easier for the PA to stay quiet and parry the criticism. They've been doing that for the past ten years, there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. If we go by what you're saying "Whipping up emotions" would be counterproductive and nothing more. I have already explained everything above or in my previous post, go through it again.
True about the nature of the drone on Iran, also true that if Pakistan actually shot down a drone, the response from the Americans such an event might be similar to that in Iran, still was pointing out that in the event of a failed attack or an ongoing attack, it would be foolish to assume that the Americans are going to stick around & await being shot down rather than taking all necessary evasive measures including dealing with a particular, localised threat.
This is where you misunderstood me. The purpose of all this hoot n holler is not to actually shoot down any US birds or to make enemies out of them. In fact the purpose behind it is so as not to let exactly that happen, while trying restructure a more equitable relationship (at least on the military's part). There are no drones going to be shot, unless the relations take a serious plunge. Neither side wants that. Lets face it, whatever the situation might be the 'need for the other' for both of us isnt going anywhere anytime soon. What these actions are meant to do is make the Americans 'behave', at least until the relations normalize. For now that is working too. There haven't been any drone strikes since November 27.
Not necessary, they are doing what they need to & why use threats if you can get your way by pretending to be great allies.
Exactly. This game plan is in effect on both the sides.
Now you are no longer arguing on the same plane of thought that you & I both might have been resident of before. This part of the argument is (to non-Pakistani mind) simply silly & to use your favourite word; juvenile! Not going to address this because it is simply a matter of perception & of some great leaps of both faith & fantasy. We will have to agree to disagree with your interpretation on this part.
"simply a matter of perception & of some great leaps of both faith & fantasy" is what its not. Its more based on facts. Had this situation arisen 5-6 years ago I would have agreed with you but today's USA is in a bit of a pickle. Even if we disregard the over stretched army and the diminishing public support, the US economy itself does not permit it for another adventure right now. Especially when you consider (and for this you do not need to take my word. You can go and check what the US authorities from the US President to Munter and from Hillary to Panetta have said) the fact that for the Americans to even sustain them selves in Afghanistan Pakistan's support is mandatory, let alone the 'end game' and the Afghani future. The most conservative estimates put Ameriacan supplies routed through Pakistan to be at 40% (due to the closure of the routes a single barrel of oil is costing them $400 right now). Here we are not comparing the military strengths of both the players but the complete scenario that is presented. These things are not mere concoctions of fantasy but ground realities. These are the same reasons why the US seriously limited its involvement in Libya, even though it was a complete walk in the park for it. Add to that the fact that, despite the surety of loosing any military confrontation with the US, the Pakistani military will pack a punch a lot stronger than Afghanistan or Iraq. The question is not whether the USA can beat the Pakistani military but beat us at what cost? If you need further in depth analysis on the situation there are many articles online by some of the most renowned think tanks out there.
Hint for the wise: These things have happened in the past quite a few times. Why do you think that instead of keeping it all hush hush and sweeping it under the rug, like before, the Pakistani military is purposefully inflating the situation?
Well, I can hardly speak for the Americans but if I were to put myself in their shoes, I don't think that it is feasible to back down in the face of a threat of hostile action. Doing so would set a bad precedent & one that would then sought to be repeated by others wherever they be. You would be wise to factor that thinking in any proposition, a fantasy or otherwise.
That mentality would be suicidal. International politics and power games are played less with emotions and bravado and more with careful thought and cunning. Had that been the case Iran, North Korea and Cuba would not exist today. After all Pakistan has not threatened US existence, it has only proposed the defense of its own sovereignty, right? We have even gone on to say that if you respect our sovereignty we will help you with all that we can.
-
