US could take unilateral action in Pakistan: Robert Gates

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

and is capable of wiping out all US forces in afghanistan by just 1 WMD.

That is not true. The damage from a nuclear weapon falls off quite quickly the further out you move from the blast zone.

Furthermore, while Pakistan would target a few thousand US troops in Afghanistan, even their entire loss would not amount to any existential threat to the US.

The US on the other hand would be able to target a much larger area of Pakistan, with far larger weapons, yielding far greater damage, and definitely pose an existential threat to Pakistan.

I do not doubt that Pakistan can make life hell for an invading army, even US, but firing off nuclear weapons at US troops in Afghanistan would be an extremely stupid thing to do. We are far better off aiming those things East if it ever (God forbid) comes down to it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The US could take unilateral action in Pakistan, as Gates said, and Pakistan could shoot down the US choppers carrying out any such unauthorized raid, as the Gen. Abbas of the ISPR said.

Now, as I have said before, we may have some sort of unofficial agreement on UAV strikes, but as long as they are based on credible intel, and minimize collateral damage, it serves our interest as well as bad guys are taken out.

Lets hope the new posting in the ISI and elsewhere result in a greater trust and cooperation to where Pakistan can carry out any ops. that need to be done.

 

[DarkStar]

You're right about that. Bombing AFghanistan is stupid, who will we aim at? Throw a bomb somewhere, you'll kill two people, three goats and a stray dog. Whereas India, with its population density and packed cities are more suited to this threat. However, I think it would be a mistake to assume, that after India's strategic embrace of USA, the US would still care about teh INdians enough to desist from action just because we can retaliate against India. They probably wouldn't give two hoots, so we should have a different deterrent.
A better strategy would be to support semi-defunct militant groups like LT and HM as a defence of last resort, setting up arms caches throughout the country, in case of an invasion, when such groups will be inundated with volunteers. Nobody wants a west bank situation, esp when there are organised groups armed to the teeth. This would be a deterrent to any invader.

 

[third eye]

That is not true. The damage from a nuclear weapon falls off quite quickly the further out you move from the blast zone.

Furthermore, while Pakistan would target a few thousand US troops in Afghanistan, even their entire loss would not amount to any existential threat to the US.

The US on the other hand would be able to target a much larger area of Pakistan, with far larger weapons, yielding far greater damage, and definitely pose an existential threat to Pakistan.

I do not doubt that Pakistan can make life hell for an invading army, even US, but firing off nuclear weapons at US troops in Afghanistan would be an extremely stupid thing to do. We are far better off aiming those things East if it ever (God forbid) comes down to it.

Even at the cost of violating rules on this forum my comments/ say on the text highlighted above :

"Not expected from a Super Moderator pls".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even at the cost of violating rules on this forum my comments/ say on the text highlighted above :

"Not expected from a Super Moderator pls".

What isn't expected? Am I suggesting that we just go out and bomb India?

No.

What I am saying is that it makes absolutely no sense to bomb US forces in Afghanistan, since the cost to the US, and the world, will be negligible.

On the other hand, a deterrent aimed at India and (perhaps) the Gulf shipping/oil infrastructure has greater deterrent value, since the cost in both human and economic terms will be far greater. IF a certain point is crossed in terms of endangering Pakistan's viable existence.

That is all there is to it. You are being too sensitive. Pakistan did not attain a nuclear deterrent to just showcase in parades - it is meant to be used if a threshold is crossed, to prevent that threshold from being crossed.

 

[third eye]

What isn't expected? Am I suggesting that we just go out and bomb India?

No.

What I am saying is that it makes absolutely no sense to bomb US forces in Afghanistan, since the cost to the US, and the world, will be negligible.

On the other hand, a deterrent aimed at India and (perhaps) the Gulf shipping/oil infrastructure has greater deterrent value, since the cost in both human and economic terms will be far greater. IF a certain point is crossed in terms of endangering Pakistan's viable existence.

That is all there is to it. You are being too sensitive. Pakistan did not attain a nuclear deterrent to just showcase in parades - it is meant to be used if a threshold is crossed, to prevent that threshold from being crossed.

Ur welcome to suggest pak should bomb India, a Super Mod also should after all have his national interests before anything else. But a deterrent aimed at the Gulf shipping seems far fetched to say the least.

I feel I have made my point & rest my case.

 

[nitesh]

I do not doubt that Pakistan can make life hell for an invading army, even US, but firing off nuclear weapons at US troops in Afghanistan would be an extremely stupid thing to do. We are far better off aiming those things East if it ever (God forbid) comes down to it.

AM, I don't think you are making any sense (I am sorry to say that but this was least expected from you). This can be termed as international blackmail at best. If this comes in to picture then what do you think still pakistan can survive? NO.

 

[nitesh]

To be honest talking about nukes every time seems like kiddish. This feels like you have lost faith totally on everything. Pl come out of that mentality.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ur welcome to suggest pak should bomb India, a Super Mod also should after all have his national interests before anything else. But a deterrent aimed at the Gulf shipping seems far fetched to say the least.

I feel I have made my point & rest my case.

I said no such thing - it was a qualified statement, and if you cannot understand nuance I can't help you - you have made no case, rather simplified my argument and mischaracterized it.

On aiming at the Gulf shipping/oil infrastructure - it affects a large part of the worlds oil supply, and therefore gives a large part of the world a stake in maintaining peace in the region.

AM, I don't think you are making any sense (I am sorry to say that but this was least expected from you). This can be termed as international blackmail at best. If this comes in to picture then what do you think still pakistan can survive? NO.

To be honest talking about nukes every time seems like kiddish. This feels like you have lost faith totally on everything. Pl come out of that mentality.

I fail to see what all the fuss is about here.

Pakistan's nuclear deterrent is there for a purpose. If Pakistan were to declare that, "well we are just going to be nice and not use this at all", even if certain thresholds are crossed, then that deterrent has no value.

India is kept at bay to large part due to that deterrent. There is a difference between suggesting that we should just nuke someone, and arguing that there will be nuclear retaliation if a certain threshold is crossed, in order to prevent that threshold from being crossed.

Again, if you cannot understand the context in which remarks were made then I can't help you.

 

[nitesh]

I said no such thing - it was a qualified statement, and if you cannot understand nuance I can't help you - you have made no case, rather simplified my argument and mischaracterized it.

On aiming at the Gulf shipping/oil infrastructure - it affects a large part of the worlds oil supply, and therefore gives a large part of the world a stake in maintaining peace in the region.




I fail to see what all the fuss is about here.

Pakistan's nuclear deterrent is there for a purpose. If Pakistan were to declare that, "well we are just going to be nice and not use this at all", even if certain thresholds are crossed, then that deterrent has no value.

India is kept at bay to large part due to that deterrent. There is a difference between suggesting that we should just nuke someone, and arguing that there will be nuclear retaliation if a certain threshold is crossed, in order to prevent that threshold from being crossed.

Again, if you cannot understand the context in which remarks were made then I can't help you.

AM, where does this "east" comes in to picture? Yes nukes are for deterrent from aggressor country. Till the point they serve the purpose it's ok. But when other countries are coming in to picture for that "deterrent" then it is nothing but blackmail. In case of attack go and target the oil links. Is that possible? Well that's debatable issue. US missile shield will be in work.

So I think that the mention of "east" was specific to india. And that is nothing but just blackmail and a kiddish behavior.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, where does this "east" comes in to picture? Yes nukes are for deterrent from aggressor country. Till the point they serve the purpose it's ok. But when other countries are coming in to picture for that "deterrent" then it is nothing but blackmail. In case of attack go and target the oil links. Is that possible? Well that's debatable issue. US missile shield will be in work.

So I think that the mention of "east" was specific to india. And that is nothing but just blackmail and a kiddish behavior.

The mention of East was indeed meant to refer to India - and the rationale behind aiming East instead of into Afghanistan I have already given.

If you can explain to me how Pakistan can inflict greater damage by bombing Afghanistan rather than India, in the case of its nuclear threshold being crossed, then let me know.

DO you honestly think the US cares a hoot about Afghans dying or the country being bombed? India on the other hand has a large economy, with strong Western business interests, and a war involving her would have far greater implications for the world, hence the world, and India would work to avoid such a situation - or so the reasoning goes.

A deterrent means 'to deter' - how else will a nuclear weapon 'deter' other than through fear? Call it blackmail or whatever, the objective is to prevent certain thresholds from being crossed, i.e negating any existential threat to Pakistan.

What is the single most important reason that comes up in discussions by Think Tanks and policy makers on not destabilizing Pakistan or attacking it?

The fact that it has nuclear weapons and could use them if pushed to the wall.

That is the reality of WMD's. Your country should not have embarked upon procuring WMD's if it did not want to deal with the repercussions.

 

[nitesh]

If western world is attacking you, go there and attack them. why not make up the delivery mechanisms to deliver your nukes there?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If western world is attacking you, go there and attack them. why not make up the delivery mechanisms to deliver your nukes there?

Perhaps someday we will - in the meantime we have to work with what we have.

One additional factor will be that no one in Pakistan will believe that India is not assisting the West in attacking/destabilizing Pakistan. So you will become a target due to a perception of complicity, which already exists as far as terrorism in Pakistan is concerned.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyway, all of this is only relevant if an existential threat to Pakistan exists, and hopefully, being the nice neighbor we know India is, such a threat is not on the cards.

 

[nitesh]

Perhaps someday we will - in the meantime we have to work with what we have.

One additional factor will be that no one in Pakistan will believe that India is not assisting the West in attacking/destabilizing Pakistan. So you will become a target due to a perception of complicity, which already exists as far as terrorism in Pakistan is concerned.

That is your view, you have used taliban the monster and now it is coming back to you. India has no role to play in this. The use of India is just an excuse to turn face from reality.