Sometimes it's best to know the individual your arguing with as
@Genghis khan1 is ex-US Military. I have family in the military on Pak Army side as officers; and what
@Genghis khan1 has said is exactly what they've said. They to have run war games to see how the Arabs would fare and it's not in good light either. We have currently serving Pak Army on this website, why you think their silent and no rebuttal against Genghis Khan1 if he was wrong.
Look brother the issue is that many folks claim that but have no understanding of war and the dynamics of it and I am going to prove that to you now.
Mostly this folks take war from a comicbook narrative point of view or if we put it politely it would be from a very heavy based assumption theory pov.. Example like some were telling me it could be over in weeks? That is not based on reality... lmao that is hilariously bad.
The issues of these laymen that has plagued PDF is that they don't understand the actual dynamics of conventional engagement and majority of it steems from not understanding what the weapons can do and what type of weapons everyone has?
This is also key not understanding what each side has lead them down a pit hole of ignorance. Also this is linked to popular conspiracy theory in the public domain so they don't do thru analysis or anything they don't know what each side has the cons and pros etc etc.. They don't understand the actual dynamics of conventional war? Like when people get there hands dirty and first bullet goes? variable outcomes?
Example: I told them flat out that Israel didn't have military edge except it's airforce? Nobody understood that until now? If they understood that they would have not argued with me?
If the Airforce is taken care of what can Israel shoot with was my question? I made it short but nobody picked up on it because there is general lack of knowledge?
Example Israel has nothing that can threatened Pakistan's conventional army. They have Merkeva tanks and stuff like that it would not threaten Pakistan or anyone in the region they have anti-tanks, equally superior tanks, drones etc etc it just a burial place for few. Hence once there airforce is taken care of they are pretty much done for conventionally this was a calculated statement. They will field drones but they will get out-droned.
Wars don't take weeks it is unrealistic. Example Pakistan vs Uzbekistan? despite Pakistan being stronger do you think they can overrun them in matter of weeks? No it will take 6-8 years depending on how much Pakistan choses to throw in. It will become a grinding feast. They have the necessary conventional means and manpower to make it a dog-fight and grinding the Uzbeks.
Let me give you another example Syria; The rebels were fighting for 10 years Russia, SAA and Iran and it was full conventional war they couldn't be defeated and made aleppo major chellenge everything was used outside of Nuclear weapons to lift them but it didn't come easy and still hold 10-15% of Syria they couldn't be undone despite the conventional effort that went into it..
Conventional war happens along these lines this people have zero knowledge because they don't actully visualize a conventional conflict but what they do is visualize comicbook narratives where battles are won withint weeks or max a month. Technically it is to difficult for them to comprehend or grasp mentally the dynamics of conventional war because they don't understand first the key components which is the armement and tech plus how it all functions when you put men behind them and also terrain and climate advantages etc etc. There is so many things that goes into it but they never take it from pragmatic point of view.
Example a country like Iran you could fight for 4-5 years in order to defeat them considering there is a coalition to take them out and some might tell you we gonna do it within a week yada yada but they don't understand conventional warfare in order to beat Iran you gotta take it from them the hard way.. meaning you gotta grind them down little by little and eventually happens during that 4-5 years depending that you throw heavy weight at them because they have the manpower and ammo re-production to keep going but eventually with heavy pressure can be grinded down..
This is what Israel lack militarily they can't grind down on anyone not even Hezbollah and in order to do that you need manpower and a vast pool of manpower. Which Israel doesn't have. They could fight Hezbollah but eventually get pushed out and imagine Hezbollah is none-state actors with limited tech. but going against a fully functioned well drilled state actor with 100m+ heavily armed and capable of rendering your airforce obsolote? There is no way on earth you are winning that conflict it is a forgone conclusion. Egypt will be able to occupy all of Israel within 1-2 years.. another Example if Assad despite being thru 10 year conflict is provided with good tech to eliminate Israel's airforce will be able to defeat Israel handily and soundly.
The same goes to Jordan which technically has the necessary capability. You can add the remaining in the region folks like Iraq despite being thru vaste wars Israel doesn't have the capabilitiy to force itself on it or grind them down the Iraqis will outlast them in a potential 1v1 war. The same goes to the GCC to numerous. Also the same issues in north of Africa, including Iran, central asian nations etc etc. They don't have that element. Hence why I said they could technically only beat Lebanon in the region my statement came via measured calculation
