Pakistan's Millitry has to emphasiz doctrine of "offensive defense,"

[pkpatriotic]

The time is now come, when Pakistan may expect a biggest challenge for its integrity & sovereignty.

This war would be with a collusion of organized, well-financed and motivated cavemen + resource able rich west NATO + India, a cruel traditional opponent in neighbor, lead by world dominated US, versus a disorganized, broken, and confused state, in short state lacking competence. Only a competent and effective state can fight this war successfully.

Pakistan, like virtually every other nation, proclaims that its forces and strategy are defensive. Faced with a much superior enemy, uncertain sources of supply, and little strategic depth, Pakistan cannot expect to absorb an initial attack and to successfully fight a protracted defensive war.

In view of above, when I have seen a policy statement during budget sessions in June- 2008 by the Mr. Yousuf Raza Gilani, where he stated that; “as a measure of Pakistan's tangible display to seek peace with our neighbours, we have decided to freeze, actually reduce, the defence budget when seen in the context of inflation and the rupee-dollar parity. Mr Gilani expressed the hope of seeing a reciprocal gesture from India. Explaining his policy the prime minister declared that our defence is based on the strategy of minimum essential credible deterrence and that we will not enter any arms race”.

It is really a great disappointment for nation by hearing above mentioned views of Mr. Gilani, hope are going to be dye to know that, the leader of the parliament house our honorable Prime minister who is also fortunately educated (MA journalism), do not know such a simple & basic reality of “might is right” required for the respectable survival in society, since the beginning of the world. It is a simple philosophy which even known by school going child, especially of in this modern age.
God Bless our loving country which is now really look like leaderless, where rulers don’t have vision which required to provide better strategy to strengthen country and national sovereignty.

As we all knows that, situation is now worst and we are at verge of high risk ( US + NATO are speed up their tasks towards fulfilling their agenda to destabilizing Pakistan, (it’s a complete topic, and I will discuss later), but in short This US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government. The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In light of the worstiest situation of our security, here I would like to bring attention of our loyal patriotic national brothers and advise the best in my views.

In my view, there can be no peace without strength. From the beginning of human history application of force or threat of force has always been persistently used to the resolution of social and political problems. This phenomenon to date seems to remain valid - more so in the context of our strategic environment. As long as there are those who threaten our vital interests we need to remain strong. Our weakness shall tempt our aggressors would have to be threaten, coerce and aggress. We must continue to place high priority on enhancing our security in relation to the strength of the potential and actual adversaries. We should neither be intimidated by the overwhelming power of the adversary nor over estimate his strength. We must develop a strategy to deal with our security concerns to counter the threat at an acceptable risk and minimal cost.

National strategy has both positive and negative aspects. The positive strategy uses all the elements of national power (economic, political, psychosocial, technological, and military) to achieve the national objective. The policy of deterrence is a negative use of power that employs the threat of force to gain time and freedom of action to employ the positive element of power.
Modern strategy requires an intuitive synthesis of policy, political purpose, values, military power, military readiness, economics and the process of negotiation.

Joint forces of opponent’s capabilities in numbers and in latest war equipments are far- ahead from us, as we knows that, 53000 troops of NATO+ Afghan army, at our NWFP borders, while their strategically partner Indian troops (approx; 1700000+) are well equipped with state of the art war equipments, We have to now take immediate actions to enhance capacity by adding skilled manpower of course not possible exact match the numbers up to the opponent forces, but at least we can have try to maintain balance upto best possible extent.

To Be Continue In next Post..........>>>>

 

[pkpatriotic]

Pakistan has been following a defense policy of deterrence by denial and reconciliation with India. This was backed up by a policy of 'nuclear ambiguity'. Within this framework,

Pakistan's military strategy was based on a series of conventional non-nuclear scenarios. Strategically our forces were forced to adopt a 'defensive posture', in the face of an overwhelming numerical and material superiority of joint enemy’s war machine. Pakistan does not have the capability to launch 'offensive' at strategic level, however, once subjected to aggression, Pakistan army and air force, through a well planned land-air battle, shall aim at causing heavy losses and attrition on the attacking forces. Having successfully checked the enemy offensive at certain point in our territory, operational strategy would rely on launching an offensive to either force the enemy out of Pakistan or as an equalizer capture sensitive enemy’s territory and soldiers to create a military stalemate and improve upon the bargaining position. This strategy was based on some optimistic assumptions that war would be limited in nature, short in duration and Pakistan would have the ability to create as a minimum, a situation of military stalemate.

Thus, in terms of conventional strategy, Pakistan has to emphasiz a doctrine of "offensive defense," which provides for quick preemptive strikes once a war begins in order to disrupt an enemy advance and inflict high costs. In addition, such actions are designed to gain salient in enemy territory, which can be used as trade-offs in peace negotiations. Navy and air force roles would be mainly defensive. The large-scale exercise Zarb-e-Momin (Sword of the Faithful), which took place in 1989, was held far enough away from the border not to frighten India, and, indeed, foreign observers were invited. Its scenario and the publicity that attended it were, however, meant to illustrate the offensive defense doctrine and to make sure that India understood it

Please be noted, in the context of Pakistan deterrent would have failed when our adversary launches the unthinkable nuclear first strike and or invades our country by conventional forces. Pakistan's relative conventional military weakness could encourage the aggressor to make dangerous miscalculations. He could launch space oriented military offensives directed at our 'critical areas' and important communication centers.

Many analysts believe that our decision-makers are not psychologically ready to use the strategic nuclear weapon on the onset of a conventional invasion. Such an action, of course, should be out of question. This will be most irresponsible, emotive, and irrational response fraught with unthinkable consequences as it tantamount to MAD (mutually assured destruction). Why should we sentence ourselves to death when the enemy comes knocking at our door? Enemy knows we are responsible and mature people and would not commit suicide by the First Use of nuclear weapons.

To the extent feasible, basic military strategy initially responds as it would in a normal conventional scenario i.e. by adopting a favorable defensive posture, deny, delay and inflict heavy attrition on the attacking enemy forces.

The fundamental characteristic of nuclear deterrent is that its use should pose an unacceptable risk to the opponent. Its success lies in achieving the objective without resort to its use. The strategy of deterrence should not be adopted in isolation. We must be ready to put into affect some other strategy to preserve our national objective during this period when the deterrent is being sustained as well as to cater for the contingency when it may actually fail. We, therefore, need to plan a workable 'strategy of defense' for the ultimate failure of deterrent.

Basically Pakistan has a very serious geographical weakness i.e. we lack strategic depth and the main lines of communication at places run perilously close to the border with India. Some of our major cities like Lahore and Sialkot are within the long-range artillery. Despite the best efforts by the defender, a determined attacker, in the modern military context, shall eventually succeed in getting a breakthrough through the defenses. It shall only be a question of time that India is successful in capturing our critical areas after accepting high rate of casualties in men and material.

Once we are engaged to confront the Western NATO forces in NWFP, Indian Forces may advance on other borders, there could be many scenarios but just to illustrate this point let us visualize if an Indian military invasion came through the Rajistan desert directed towards the GT road near Rahimyarkhan. In matter of days, India could cut off our north-south communication, divide and dislocate our military forces and divide the country in two. The capture of this critical space could act as a springboard to launch further maneuvers of exploitation towards areas in depth. If they choose to limit their objectives, they could consolidate and retain these spaces. This action by itself can cause strategic division and isolation of our forces leading to ultimate defeat and break up of a nation. In conjunction with offensive in other areas as well, they could prolong the war and go for our areas in depth. Pakistan options would have foreclosed - except one!

We should have well defined and declared strategy of using our ultimate choice of nuclear weapons aimed at the destruction of those military forces, which have intruded in our territory. Our aim should be the destruction of the invading military forces only and not his civilian population. We should aim to strike with tactical nuclear weapons at the base of enemy offensive in the proximity of the international border. Tactical nuclear weapons are very low yield weapons, which have a very limited radius of damage. Some standard artillery guns, rockets, and missiles can deliver these, so can helicopters and aircraft. Such low yield, high radiation nuclear weapons can quickly and decisively alter the entire course of battle. Though tactical in characteristics these can produce strategic effect.

We can also perhaps now retain the balance through the deployment of very low yield tactical nuclear weapons during any future war. This should become the cornerstone of our defense strategy. This planned employment of tactical nuclear weapons has an exclusively defensive dimension. Pakistan does not have the desire or for that matter the capability to initiate any form of war, be it conventional or nuclear. All we are saying is that should strategic nuclear deterrent fail and India launches a major conventional offensive towards our critical and sensitive areas, we shall firstly do our utmost by conventional means but if our defenses are ruptured, we shall be free to exercise our right to use tactical nuclear weapons to check the enemy intrusion into our territory.
The significant features of the evolved strategy could be:-

1. Pakistan shall not resort to first use of any strategic nuclear weapons.
2. If nuclear deterrent fails and the aggressor seizes the initiative to launch the First Strike, we shall hit back with our Second Strike ability.
3. In case the deterrent fails by the enemy launching a meaningful conventional offensive, our forces shall resiliently defend their homeland.
4. Any time in our perception when the defences are seriously endangered and a collapse is imminent, we shall be obliged to raise the scope and nature of our response. We shall now employ tactical nuclear weapons against the invading military forces.
5. This is essentially a defensive strategy backed up by a series of controlled escalations.
6. Our response shall be directly proportionate to the actions of enemy provocation and threat posed to our security.

It has a manifest ability to react to any threat at the appropriate level. It initially relies on the assumption (emanating by our abiding desire for peace) that the strategy of nuclear deterrent shall work. It is based on full recognition of the prevailing environment that we shall never have the resources to indefinitely increase and update our conventional forces to create a reasonable balance with the ever-upgrading capabilities of our traditional and strategical rivals.

This conceptual doctrine reinforces our objective not only to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by an aggressor but shall certainly impose a certain measure of caution on him. This shall also demonstrate our national will to preserve the peace and our desire to settle all issues through negotiations with more confidence. The doctrine aims to present the enemy with an unacceptable degree of risk and injury in proportion to his potential gains. For such a policy to succeed it is important that potential aggressor is made aware that such a policy exits. Finally, he must know that the doctrine is matched by the political will and available means to execute it.

We shall only retaliate with the use of tactical nuclear weapons on military targets (proportional to our needs only) under extreme provocation when our conventional defences are perceived to be at the verge of collapse. In other words we are giving an opponent the strongest possible incentive to refrain from nuclear strike or a conventional military offensive against us.

GOD MAY BLESS TO WHOLE WORLD PARTICULAR PAKISTAN

 

[pkpatriotic]

Dear Mr.WebMaster, There is no need to thanks, as being Patriotic Pakistani..it's our duty to make every possible efforts what we can do upto maximum extent/capabilities for the integrity & sovereignty of Pakistani nation...........but anyway...You always welcome sir and God bless you and all of us!!!

 

[muse]

I appalud the sentiment behind the posts, however; allow me to play devils advocate and suggest that while it is correct that Pakistan seem surrounded by enemies - a clear headed evaluation will reveal that we face a threat that you have not accounted for -- the threat is not the traditional war with armies massed at the border -- the threat is internal fragmentation.

If the threat is internal fragmentation, what is the point of worrying about "strategic depth" and in a age of ballistic missile armed forces, such depth is meaningless.

if the threat is internal fragmentation - how is this threat to be dealt with?

 

[IceCold]

The thing is that who is to blame for such actions, obviously us because we brought them into the government. We have no regards at all for a Person who was there when there was no one to take the country out from being declared a fail state. We want him out as if what wrong deeds has he committed other then saving a non deserving nation. God bless Pakistan.

 

[batmannow]

I appalud the sentiment behind the posts, however; allow me to play devils advocate and suggest that while it is correct that Pakistan seem surrounded by enemies - a clear headed evaluation will reveal that we face a threat that you have not accounted for -- the threat is not the traditional war with armies massed at the border -- the threat is internal fragmentation.

If the threat is internal fragmentation, what is the point of worrying about "strategic depth" and in a age of ballistic missile armed forces, such depth is meaningless.

if the threat is internal fragmentation - how is this threat to be dealt with?

MUSE DEAR, SIR... INTERNAL FRAGMENTATION... ???
internal situation of pakistan, was due to our weaker defence on the boder of NWFP. it all happened because, of our former genrls, like LT. GEN QAYUM OR LT. GEN KIYANI who were supporting MUSHARF, when he was confornting USA ( THE ALONE SUPER POWER) of the world and an emerging new super power with out any name or adress, i mean ALQAEDA.. at, that time , the high ranking army officers like the above mentioned names never thought to protect our boders.

they were to busy to get jobs, where ever what ever they wanted.... they were simply looting the pakistan.. with both hands and they didnt contributed any thing as far as our defence was concerned.

as far as the importance of the numbers of troops is concerned..... why CHINA, INDIA, RUSSIA... USA.. UK, FRANCE IRAN , NORTH KOREA HAVING a huge numbers of troops ???!!! evn all of above mentioned have the capabilty of missiles.. & i mean it ! evry kind of missiles, but still each and every above mentioned state keeping a large number of troops? why???

 

[Neo]

... as being Patriotic Pakistani..it's our duty to make every possible efforts what we can do upto maximum extent/capabilities for the integrity & sovereignty of Pakistani nation...........but anyway...You always welcome sir and God bless you and all of us!!!

Well said PP!

 

[pkpatriotic]

The time is now come, when Pakistan may expect a biggest challenge for its integrity & sovereignty.

This war would be with a collusion of organized, well-financed and motivated cavemen + resource able rich west NATO + India, a cruel traditional opponent in neighbor, lead by world dominated US, versus a disorganized, broken, and confused state, in short state lacking competence. Only a competent and effective state can fight this war successfully.

Pakistan, like virtually every other nation, proclaims that its forces and strategy are defensive. Faced with a much superior enemy, uncertain sources of supply, and little strategic depth, Pakistan cannot expect to absorb an initial attack and to successfully fight a protracted defensive war.

God Bless our loving country which is now really look like leaderless, where rulers don’t have vision which required to provide better strategy to strengthen country and national sovereignty.

As we all knows that, situation is now worst and we are at verge of high risk ( US + NATO are speed up their tasks towards fulfilling their agenda to destabilizing Pakistan, (it’s a complete topic, and I will discuss later), but in short This US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government. The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In light of the worstiest situation of our security, here I would like to bring attention of our loyal patriotic national brothers and advise the best in my views.

In my view, there can be no peace without strength. From the beginning of human history application of force or threat of force has always been persistently used to the resolution of social and political problems. This phenomenon to date seems to remain valid - more so in the context of our strategic environment. As long as there are those who threaten our vital interests we need to remain strong.

We must develop a strategy to deal with our security concerns to counter the threat at an acceptable risk and minimal cost.

National strategy has both positive and negative aspects. The positive strategy uses all the elements of national power (economic, political, psychosocial, technological, and military) to achieve the national objective. The policy of deterrence is a negative use of power that employs the threat of force to gain time and freedom of action to employ the positive element of power.
Modern strategy requires an intuitive synthesis of policy, political purpose, values, military power, military readiness, economics and the process of negotiation.

To Be Continue In next Post..........>>>>

I appalud the sentiment behind the posts, however; allow me to play devils advocate and suggest that while it is correct that Pakistan seem surrounded by enemies - a clear headed evaluation will reveal that we face a threat that you have not accounted for -- the threat is not the traditional war with armies massed at the border -- the threat is internal fragmentation.

If the threat is internal fragmentation, what is the point of worrying about "strategic depth" and in a age of ballistic missile armed forces, such depth is meaningless.

if the threat is internal fragmentation - how is this threat to be dealt with?

Dear Muse Tkx to dap on above post.
I appreciate the depth of your concerns about the "Internal fragmentation", Here I would like to suggest you sir, please review the post i have already highlighted the issues (internal & external) facing by Pakistan, (as requoted above in this post for your kind reference) Please recheck above quoted paras of my posts.

I have adressed internal issues in light mode, but with remarks to write in detail later in trail post to avoid extraordinary length of post, while the strategic topic already demanded details it self, and 2nd I wish to be particular on strategy to confornt external threat for our security and sovereignty.

As we all may be aware that, if we have to sort out some or any of our personal domestic (home) problems, so before counseling to the childrens, we have to ensure the hold back any sort external meddling, similarly that's what I did by commencing stratigically to confront external threats..........while as i have stated in my post, I am continue to address the issues by writing the suggestions best in my view & vision to overcome internal matters of our country. But anyway, I really admired of your serious concern upon issues.

I appreciate if you may also help me to share your precious advises in this reagard, as ultimately it's our moral, social & cultural duty to make best possible efforts to unite the nation by educating them, by supporting them and encourage them to face the situation and ease there arrogance by sharing their problems with our best sincere efforts upto the maximum possiblities & capabilities individual each of us, and as a team work to get rid of this crucial time on us Pakistan nation, to deliver a message to the rivals and their domestic slaves (Mir jaffers + Mir Sadiq) that, we are a well-deciplined, civilized live nation having values to repect others, but don't bear any threat for our country.

GOD ALREAY BLESSED ON OUR NATION BY AWARDED SUCH AN IMPORTANT LOCATION FULL OF RESOURCES, JUST WE HAVE TO RECOGNISED THAT TO BE THANKSFUL.

GOD BLESS PAKISTAN

 

[pkpatriotic]

Well said PP!

Thanks Neo........this is true understandings & concerns.

 

[vish]

Gee... tally ho are we?

Offensive Defense: Do you know how risky and difficult agressive actions are?

Plus, we are more interested in your stability than perhaps you guys are.

Your muck will soon become ours... why would we attack you? We got better things to do in life... development for example.

US won't attack you; it is doing which your army and/or government haven't -- put things in order.

 

[batmannow]

Gee... tally ho are we?

Offensive Defense: Do you know how risky and difficult agressive actions are?

Plus, we are more interested in your stability than perhaps you guys are.

Your muck will soon become ours... why would we attack you? We got better things to do in life... development for example.

US won't attack you; it is doing which your army and/or government haven't -- put things in order.

MY, DEAR VISH , sir... what ever u said i agree with your point of view.... but i have very important question for u , which is that, if ever INDIA would like to reduce the troops number in KASHMIR... will it bring devolpment and progress or it will be more anti-india insurgency....?

 

[batmannow]

Iranian Army


In 1979, the year of the Shah's departure, the army experienced a 60-percent desertion from its ranks. By 1986 the regular army was estimated to have a strength of 305,000 troops. By 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts). These force numbers remained relatively static by 2008, where the Army had 130,000 regular soldiers and 220,000 conscripts In the fervor of the Revolution and in the light of numerous changes affecting conscripts and reservists, the army underwent a structural reorganization. Under the Shah, the army had been deployed in 6 divisions and 4 specialized combat regiments supported by more than 500 helicopters and 14 hovercraft. The Shah's relationship with the West and border disputes with Iraq had led to the development of a military geared toward fighting conventional land conflict, and not necessarily suited to Iran's domestic needs or capacity. An 85-percent readiness rate was usually credited to the force, although some outside observers doubted this claim.

Overview Range Charts
Designation Stages Propellant Range IOC Inventory Alternate Name
Mushak-120 1 solid 130 km ? Iran-130, Nazeat 10
Mushak-160 1 solid 160 km Fateh-110 / NP-110
Mushak-200 1 solid 200 km Zelzal-2
Shahab-1 1 liquid 300 km 1995 50-300 Scud-B
Shahab-2 1 liquid 500 km 50-150 Scud-C
Shahab-3 1 liquid 1,300 km 2002 25-100 Zelzal-3
Shahab-4 2 liquid 2,000 km 0
IRIS 1 liquid / solid 3000 km 2005 Shahab 3D
X-55 LACM 1 jet engine 3,000 km 2001 12
Shahab-5 3 liquid 5,500 km 0
Shahab-6 3 liquid 10,000 km 0


India Military Guide

Army The army numbers about one million personnel and fields 34 divisions. Designed primarily to defend the country's frontiers, the army has become heavily committed to internal security duties in Kashmir and the Northeast.

In 2002 the Indian Army had 980,000 active troops, along with an Army Reserve consisting of: 300,000 first line troops (those within five years of full time service), and another 500,000 second line troops (subject to recall to service until 50 years of age). The Territorial Army numbered 40,000 first line troops (and 160,000 second line troops). In 1994 the army had approximately 940,000 men and women on active duty, and another 36,000 in the Territorial Army. As of 1998 the Army had a sanctioned troop strength of 1,045,000, but there was a shortage of about 59,000 troops.

Korean People's Army - Introduction

The Korean People's Army is the "revolutionary armed wing" of the Worker's Party as stated in Article 46 of the party constitution, with first and foremost loyalties to the party. The Korean People's Army was established on Feb. 08, 1948.

The KPA is the vanguard of the Korean revolution,the revolutionary armed forces of the Workers Party Of Korea. The Army-First/Songun idea was articulated by Leader KIM JONG IL, who declared that the choice was Army-first politics to maintain indepedence or become the colonial slaves of imperialism.

North Korea continues to position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning. Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of “creeping normalcy”—a significant movement over a period of many years that would attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or months.

According to remarks made by General LaPorte, commander USFK, during congressional testimony in March 2003 North Korea has for the past 10 or 12 years adapted its military on what the military leadership perceives as the strengths of the United States military. The KPA has adapted in several ways. First in terms of communications the North Korean military has developed an indigenous, frequency-hopping radio that allows soldiers to communicate in a secure mode. Fiber optics have been installed between fixed facilities. And in attempt to protect its forces from US surveillance and air capabilities, the North Koreans have built a tremendous number of underground facilities throughout North Korea to protect leadership and critical forces.

Ground Forces Order of Battle

{NOTE: Changes between 1992 and 1999 reflect both actual changes in the composition of KPA forces, as well as improved intelligence estimates of these forces[

1992
Number 1999
Number
Strength +1,100,000 996,000
Organization
Corps 20
Conventional 8 12
Mechanized 4 4
Armor 1 ? 2
Artillery 2 2
Geographic 1
Military district commands 9
Divisions / Brigades 153
Infantry divisions 26-30 60
Reserve and pacification divisions 22-26
Infantry brigades 3-6
Reserve and pacification brigades 18+
Mechanized and mobile brigades 23-30 25
Armor brigades 14-15 13
Artillery brigades 20-30 30
Special operations forces brigades 22 25
Special operations forces battalions 7
Equipment
Total medium and light tanks 3,600 3,800
T-54/55/59 +2,200
T-62 +600
T-34 n.a.
APCs 2,500 2,270
Other light tanks (PT-76/China's T-62/63 and North Korea's M-1985) n.a.
Artillery 11,200
Self-propelled +5,500
Towed +3,000
Multiple rocket launchers 2,400
Mortars
60-160mm +9,000

n.a.--not available.


Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)NORTH KOREA

North Korea
Liquid Propellant Launch Vehicles
1. Scud-B
2. Scud-C
3. No-dong-A
4. No-dong-B
5. Taep’o-dong-1 =Taep’o-dong
6. n/a
7. Taep’o-dong-2,2A
8. Taep’o-dong-2B? =
9. Taep’o-dong-2C/3

“The Taep’o-dong-2 in a two-stage ballistic missile configuration could deliver a several -hundred-kg payload up to 10,000 km- sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States. If the North uses a third stage similar to the one used on the Taep’o-dong-1 in 1998 in a ballistic missile configuration, then the Taep’o-dong-2 could deliver a several hundred-kilogram payload up to 15,000 km - sufficient to strike all of North America. A Taep’o-dong-2 flight test probably would be conducted as an SLV with a third stage to place a small payload into the sameorbit the North Koreans tried to achieve in 1998.”.... (1)
...”.The multiple-stage Taep’o-dong-2, which is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear weapon-size payload, may be ready for flight-testing. The North probably also is working on improvements to its current design.

The Taep’o-dong-2 in a two-stage configuration could deliver a several-hundred-kilogram payload up to 10,000 km-sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States.

If the North uses a third stage similar to the one used on the Taep’o-dong-1 in 1998, the Taep’o-dong-2 could deliver a several-hundred-kg payload up to 15,000 km-sufficient to strike all of North America.

A Taep’o-dong-2 flight test probably would be conducted as a space launch vehicle with a third stage to place a small payload into the same orbit attempted in 1998....

PLUS, INDIA, RUSSIA, BRAZIL, UK , FRANCE, MANY more countries have the WMDS but, none of these mentioned states reduced or decreased their number of troops for any reason !!! even having the basic detorant, all the mentioned states still kept a huge number of troops .

BUT , there is only a country called PAKISTAN , which cut its number of troops for what real reason, god knows better???

IN the light of dangers what PAKISTAN is facing today, its very important for PAKISTAN to increase its number of troops immedietly... to let off preasure on the troops which are opreating in FATA.

 

[JK!]

I am against increasing troop numbers as I don't think Pakistan can sustain them in the present economic climate as it can barely equip some troops already operating in FATA.

 

[sng]

Originally Posted by pkpatriotic
I appreciate if you may also help me to share your precious advises in this reagard, as ultimately it's our moral, social & cultural duty to make best possible efforts to unite the nation by educating them, by supporting them and encourage them to face the situation and ease there arrogance by sharing their problems with our best sincere efforts upto the maximum possiblities & capabilities individual each of us, and as a team work to get rid of this crucial time on us Pakistan nation, to deliver a message to the rivals and their domestic slaves (Mir jaffers + Mir Sadiq) that, we are a well-deciplined, civilized live nation having values to repect others, but don't bear any threat for our country.

wow! gr8 saying pkpatriot, wish good luck to you & pakistan

 

[vish]

MY, DEAR VISH , sir... what ever u said i agree with your point of view.... but i have very important question for u , which is that, if ever INDIA would like to reduce the troops number in KASHMIR... will it bring devolpment and progress or it will be more anti-india insurgency....?

One ideally needs a 25:1 ratio in terms of men to combat guerilla conflicts (both local and foreign).

A 10:1 ratio is a bare necessity. A guerilla war isn't a war; it is more police-work with somewhat heavy weapons.

If we reduce our troops, the guerilla war picks up again. There is no start and end to a guerilla war... It is perpetually moving to and fro...

Our troop presence in our side of J&K has to go hand in hand with slow and steady development.


Batmannow:

Your country needs boots in the ground; not state-of-the-art hardware.

We are not going to attack you; it does not benefit us in any way.

For guerilla war; you need men on the ground; give them a second-hand AK-47 and that's it.

In my view, your biggest danger is that these guerillas are really smart.

They have made sure that the locals are pissed off with the government. They have maximized the genuine anti-American current to their advantage. They have used religion as the perfect propaganda. Above all, are there any jobs left in the region?

Your country is in this **** for decades; surprisingly, you guys still talk hardware and India and parity and not the real threat.