US could take unilateral action in Pakistan: Robert Gates

[IceCold]

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

Understand something, India isnt helping the situation get stabilized either, infact at the expense of the US in afghanistan, it is trying its level best to support elements that can destabilize Pakistan. This makes you a part of it. Also although i know Indians will deny it plain simple, the water cut from the Indian side is not something just out of the ordinary. India knows Pakistan is in trouble and is enjoying every moment of it and infact creating more trouble from afghanistan aswell as ways like cutting water etc.
WMDs are a deterrence and If pakistan is pushed to the wall then who ever and whatever will be involved in it, Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear. That includes India as wel.

 

[nitesh]

Understand something, India isnt helping the situation get stabilized either, infact at the expense of the US in afghanistan, it is trying its level best to support elements that can destabilize Pakistan. This makes you a part of it. Also although i know Indians will deny it plain simple, the water cut from the Indian side is not something just out of the ordinary. India knows Pakistan is in trouble and is enjoying every moment of it and infact creating more trouble from afghanistan aswell as ways like cutting water etc.
WMDs are a deterrence and If pakistan is pushed to the wall then who ever and whatever will be involved in it, Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear. That includes India as wel.

No you are not making any sense. How this water issue comes in between?
No India is not supporting any elements. Plain and simple. If you can't fight to a country who is attacking you then pulling others in between is nothing else but a blackmail.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

An excuse from what?

I am merely narrating perceptions. I see Indian accusations of ISI involvement in events in India as an excuse too. Doesn't stop the GoI or Indians from continuing to believe in that paranoia.

It is what it is. If India is not involved, the 'monster' will be contained, both in FATA and Baluchistan. If it is, then it might be harder - we shall see. If your country is not involved, then you have nothing to fear. However this is digressing, my remarks were made in the context of an existential threat posed to Pakistan.

 

[nitesh]

An excuse from what?

I am merely narrating perceptions. I see Indian accusations of ISI involvement in events in India as an excuse too. Doesn't stop the GoI or Indians from continuing to believe in that paranoia.

It is what it is. If India is not involved, the 'monster' will be contained, both in FATA and Baluchistan. If it is, then it might be harder - we shall see. If your country is not involved, then you have nothing to fear. However this is digressing, my remarks were made in the context of an existential threat posed to Pakistan.

Ok, so now the kashmir comes in between. Leave it please.

Yes India is not involved, best of luck to contain the taliban. The existential threat comes to pakistan it should hit the source, that's it. Your remark to involve others is not justifiable AM. For example: Go and hit Deo garcia, Japan where US forces are based. Why to come to India?

This way you can hit america's interest.

 

[Ali.009]

Ok, so now the kashmir comes in between. Leave it please.

Yes India is not involved, best of luck to contain the taliban. The existential threat comes to pakistan it should hit the source, that's it. Your remark to involve others is not justifiable AM. For example: Go and hit Deo garcia, Japan where US forces are based. Why to come to India?

This way you can hit america's interest.

You are not trying to understand the point. Its very appropriate to threat the country to hit somewhere else (their strategic asset) if they attack. So it will be very wise to let US know, we can launch a world scale war starting with Isreal, if they plan to ruin another muslim country. Just like it will be appropriate for me to hit your brother, if you try to be smart.

The root cause is Isreal.

-Regards

 

[nitesh]

You are not trying to understand the point. Its very appropriate to threat the country to hit somewhere else (their strategic asset) if they attack. So it will be very wise to let US know, we can launch a world scale war starting with Isreal, if they plan to ruin another muslim country. Just like it will be appropriate for me to hit your brother, if you try to be smart.

The root cause is Isreal.

-Regards

So it is coming to Islam so your bomb will destruct only hindus haan?, if suppose you say that you will hit Israel/ India and Israel/ India says that they will hit everywhere where is Islam then?

Don't be insane here.
If somebody is attacking you attack that country as simple as that.

 

[third eye]

You are not trying to understand the point. Its very appropriate to threat the country to hit somewhere else (their strategic asset) if they attack. So it will be very wise to let US know, we can launch a world scale war starting with Isreal, if they plan to ruin another muslim country. Just like it will be appropriate for me to hit your brother, if you try to be smart.

The root cause is Isreal.

-Regards

World scale war ?!!

Saddam tried this with indifferent results..contrary to what most feel, religious affinity does not last when the 1st bullet is fired & self interests are on the line.

 

[dr.umer]

It's such a mess as some press reports are saying that US fully respects the sovereignty of Pakistan and other say that unilateral military action is required. US is herself confused as what to do to save herself from 'definite' defeat in Afghanistan.

Also elections are coming up. Bush has already flopped at economic end (bailout of 700bn $ has been rejected already) and to save embarrassment, he is desperately trying hard to win in Afghanistan.

 

[third eye]

US cites laws, UN Charter to justify Fata raids

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 29: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says that international laws allow the United States to take unilateral actions inside Pakistan.

In two separate statements and during a hearing at a Senate panel, the top US defence official made it clear that the United States considered insurgency in Fata the greatest danger confronting the West and was willing to send its troops to root out extremism if it felt the need to do so.

Mr Gates, however, also emphasised the importance of working with Pakistan, saying that the US was cooperating with the new Pakistani government to defeat militancy and would continue to do so.

At the Senate panel hearing, Mr Gates agreed with Democratic Senator Jim Webb who had told him that the United Nations Charter — under which the US operates in Afghanistan — gave the US the right of self-defence where a foreign government was either unable or unwilling to take care of international terrorist activity inside its borders.

Mr Gates said: “The authorities we have been granted were carefully coordinated over a protracted period of time in the interagency.”

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I would simply assume that . . . appropriate international law was consulted by the State Department.”

In a written statement before the committee, Mr Gates said that “insecurity and violence” in the Afghan-Pakistan region “will persist … until the insurgency is deprived of safe-havens” in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

And, the US defence chief told the National Defence University in Washington that the United States had to act against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan because it could not afford to fail.

“To be blunt, to fail – or to be seen to fail – in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to our credibility, both among our friends and allies and among potential adversaries,” he said.

In his written statement to the Senate panel, Mr Gates explained that despite Pakistan’s perceived failure in controlling insurgency in the tribal areas, he believed that the Pakistani government was aware of the threat it faced and was doing its best to overcome it.

Earlier, Mr Gates explained that Pakistan could not defeat terrorism on its own.

“Pakistani government doesn’t have the capacity to launch unilateral operation against militants inside its borders,” he said.

He noted that the US depended on Pakistani road links to send 80 per cent of its supplies and 40 per cent of fuel into Afghanistan. He said that while the US was looking for alternative channels, it could not afford to ignore Pakistan.

 

[Pk_Thunder]

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.

nitesh,dont turn this thread into flames because of his last line,try to understand the post into its full context,he doesnt mean to bomb india.

 

[nitesh]

[/B]

nitesh,dont turn this thread into flames because of his last line,try to understand the post into its full context,he doesnt mean to bomb india.

Oh so then what it exactly meant? care to explain.

 

[Pk_Thunder]

nitesh,he meant it would be no good for pakstan to go at war with US and would not ba appropriate to carry out nuke attack into afghanistan (he was referring to those who suggested the use of nukes in afghanistan on US forces would bring good results )he never meant to leave afghanistan and lets bomb india so calm down,i wish u understand now.

 

[nitesh]

nitesh,he meant it would be no good for pakstan to go at war with US and would not ba appropriate to carry out nuke attack into afghanistan (he was referring to those who suggested the use of nukes in afghanistan on US forces would bring good results )he never meant to leave afghanistan and lets bomb india so calm down,i wish u understand now.

Care to check post no 26 and subsequent posts in this thread.

Hope you will understand and calm down.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok, so now the kashmir comes in between. Leave it please.

Yes India is not involved, best of luck to contain the taliban. The existential threat comes to pakistan it should hit the source, that's it. Your remark to involve others is not justifiable AM. For example: Go and hit Deo garcia, Japan where US forces are based. Why to come to India?

This way you can hit america's interest.

Once again Nitesh - The objective behind having any deterrent is to threaten enough damage on an opponent's interests that they will not push you beyond a certain threshold.

If the US attacks Pakistan, we cannot threaten its interests by attacking Afghanistan or Iran, nor do we currently possess the capability to threaten its territory directly.

The only option we then have is to threaten the US and the World's interests indirectly, by implying that India would be targeted and perhaps the oil infrastructure in the Gulf. Your nation is hostile to Pakistan, that makes targeting it easier, and the global business interests in India, and the threat of an oil supply disruption make the world vested in ensuring that no nuclear war occurs. That is all there is to it, not this Hindu nonsense you are bringing in now.

Its all about threatening enough global interests to prevent an existential threat to Pakistan, and therefore prevent nuclear war in the first place. If the threat is not large enough, deterrence will not happen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

religious affinity does not last when the 1st bullet is fired & self interests are on the line.

Agreed - As I indicated earlier, I'm all for also targeting the Arab oil infrastructure in case of an existential threat to Pakistan. The whole point is making the consequences of going to war severe enough to prevent war.

Some here are focusing on the consequences alone, as if that is what I am pushing for. No I am highlighting the consequences that should occur, so that war does not. The idea is preventing war through deterrence.