US has no permission to launch drone strikes: PM Gilani

[rai_kamal]

1. Taliban are the people of Afghanistan
2. They have the right to live as they like in their country
3. If they dont want to watch tv, or listen to music or whatever - the world has no right to impose their life style on other people
4. But the world doesnt think that, it considers itself to be unneeded saviour of people of other countries
5. Thats why world starts the war and fails miserably. After failing tries hopelessly to save face (Iraq)
6. For global peace, world needs to understand that people all over the earth are same interms of their rights. Which means they have the right to live as they like
7. It also needs to understand that laws of land of different countries can be different along with different life styles of people of different countries

1. Supported by ISI
2. Now is that democratic ??
3. But they should allow others.
4. What taliban did on 9/11 and bomb blasts it was required.
5. It's completely US's fault.
6. That means they can bombared on any country and the country had no right to raise their voice.
7. Killing innocent is lifestyle ???

 

[Major vikram batra]

Congratulations , You were able to come up with a post.



I thought you are a moderator and know everything. Sorry

 

[Major vikram batra]

Congratulations , You were able to come up with a post.



I thought you are a moderator and know everything. Sorry

Major vikram batra Today, 07:59 PM
This message has been deleted by Santro

Finally you showed your power( real face too, I changed your image in my mind, you are no different than rest of pakistani)! Thanks

 

[LeGenD]

Exactly, Compared to even random CAP.. a hardened stinger site is almost equally effective.. and extremely cheap to set up.

There is one problem. MQ9 Reaper Drones can fly at altitudes in excess of 40,000 feet. Therefore, Manpads would not be effective against them.

Only solution is response through PAF. But then again, what if USAF springs in to action?

If the PAF wanted to bag a drone, they could... period. They need not maintain constant CAPS near the border. Simply decide on a few successive days where they would, and the odds of finding one and shooting it down would be high. That presumes that the US does not stand down when PAF fighters are in the area.

If that's the case, then the PAF could use that to their advantage. Launch random CAPS in the active area at odd intervals. This would disrupt drone ops which are, by nature, methodical and slow in how they progress.

And that ignores ground-based defenses. A single SAM battery in the area could deny a large volume of sky. But Pakistan has not done this. The only logical conclusion, which most people reached years ago, is that Pakistan is complicit in the drone ops and allows it to take place.

If this was so easy, we could have done it long ago.

MQ9 Reaper Drones are no joke. Yes, they are slow moving but they compensate by flying at extremely high altitudes and carrying guided munitions.

Also, there are plans for arming these Drones with Air-to-Air missiles. What if some are already equipped with these capabilities? Nobody would want to loose a Jet Fighter to a Drone.

PAF can deal with this menace but USAF is the problem. Also, the upcoming armed Stealth Drones can pose significant challenge on their own.

Besides, these sophisticated machines are being used against terrorists. So there is no motive to make a move against them. Yes, loss of innocent lives is the real concern and US needs to address this part.

 

[Chogy]

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are overstating the difficulty. The Predator A, the drone that does the bulk of the drone strikes, flies at 25,000 max. It's performance is similar to a civilian piston aircraft. What you imply is that it is a political issue, not a technical issue, and that is very possible.

These drones do not fly with fighter escort. That would be unlikely due to cost and the noise of the escort. If Pakistan wanted to kill a Predator, they absolutely could. The question becomes, why don't they? I think the answer is, they approve of the strikes.

Besides, these sophisticated machines are being used against terrorists. So there is no motive to make a move against them. Yes, loss of innocent lives is the real concern and US needs to address this part.

How can we possibly avoid innocent casualties? If we held fire, all a terrorist would have to do is carry a child around at all times. A war could not be executed.

This modern notion that somehow only bad guys should be killed and all innocents shouldn't be touched is a childish fantasy. It cannot be done. Minimized, but expectations need to be adjusted.