What's new

What if PAF has to defend on two fronts?

Actually these may not exactly be deslusions. Its like this, there are more ACs in IAF than PAF, more missiles etc not adding Israel and US with former having pleaded for joint strikes at Pakistani Nuclear Facility since 1984 on on atleast 7 occassions. They are willing to contribute ACs for the same. As for US, it can not allow use of Nuclear weapons by Pakistan, it reflects on it about harping about non-proliferation while its own protege of 80s acquired them with full knowledge of US administration at that time.

Another aspect is that US installed the command and control system for these nukes under a deal with Prez Musharraf to secure them against theft by fundamentalists. So am pretty sure they have a great idea of where to find Pakistani Nukes.

As for India, there is enough intel about things in Pakistan. Especially about Taliban and al-Qaeda. In fact extensive Indo-US cooperation is on over situation in NWFP and FATA. Indian Special Forces are involved there in Afghanistan although in small numbers. Selective targets are being neutralised as also assets being placed in case needed.

Lastly usage of nuclear weapon is very difficult and impractical. I doubt very much Pakistan will launch Nuclear Weapons all over at the same time, instead it will try to minimize it at tactical level. It does not have the necessary amount of warheads to annihilate Indian cities (the population and urbanisation is simply too large in much more area than Pakistan) whereas the Indian strike will definitely be final and used to inflict complete damage. Even usage at tactical level means complete nuclear response by India. Also a very significant line in Indian Nuclear Doctrine " India wont be the first to use but wont be first to stop either"

watching too many hollywood/bollywood movies and reading jim clancy novels are we!

your comments are full of contradictions and un-substantiated at best "gossip". having said that its a good read.
 
If we considering to front conflict and the role of PAF ,THAN IT will be bit different and difficult,PAF has not much capacity to bear two enemies or two fronts at a time but the things will not impossible ,,,,,,,,,,first view the map and you can guess about PAF strategy
d23563e1b2f68148ba69ac20ff4cf8d7.gif


1:we have not much bases on AFGHAN front so you cant rely ONLY on PAF ,in such case of war scenerio on both side , we can set same strategy which we set against RUSSIA , sending commandos inside the AFGHANISTAN ,damaging their assets to overcome air attacks in PAKISTAN ,stopping their logistic support from where ever it is coming .
2:in worst scenerio missile attacks can be used .
3:On indian front ,deploy majority of air power ,with the strategy of defence and offence.
4:The main weak area of pakistan is it centre ,if someone got success in cutting the coomunication line ,it will be easy to cut pakistan in two parts ,in 1965 india tried to do same thing by invading LAHORE but they failed ,IF we draw a line from LAHORE TOWARD WEST it meets with waziristan ,(thats why enemy has selected that area to be destabilized ,its there long term planning)so that line and central area must be more important to be deffended.
 
Ok once agian some one has deleted my post show your self and face me you coward ! there is nothing wrong in my posts while u seem to delete them i will take this up with neo & webby ! anyhow do we know wat aircrafts where used in this news from the IAF & PAF when this all went down ??
 
Last edited:
Is that why drones attack take place in Pakistan ? Anyway the person who started this thread wanted to know how Pakistan will perform on two fronts and I guess you have nothing tactical to contribute.

Bye and Regards

Always Neutral; sir
thanks for your ever-unneutrality, this going fine, and we started to get some very usefull points,i guss the scene you tryed to potray here ,wasnt have any worth, & its makes your expectations, go down , its not any 1 fault , but plz keep russia out of your crunnt equations, to remind you, in the case you tried to put here, there "WOULD BE NO AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOTALY, DESTROYED AFTER 2 NUCKLEAR HITS BY PAKISTAN".

IRAN , CHINA & MAYBE RUSSIA WOULD BE ON PAKISTAN,S SIDE!
I SEE, 600 FIGHTER AIRCRAFTS FROM CHINA, 350 FROM PAKISTAN, 150 FROM IRAN WOULDBE LOOKING FOR , ANY OF YOUR DESIRED ALLIED COUNTRIES TARGETS!
BELIVE IT OR NOT, SURLY IT WILL END TO , A WORLD WAR111!
is this makes you happy!:lol::D:tup:
if not , let me know plz , i will paint a whole new picture for your peace!:lol::lol::lol::crazy:
 
Last edited:
‘Concerns’ conveyed to India over airspace violation:tup:
December 19, 2008 Friday Zilhaj 20, 1429

By Baqir Sajjad Syed
dawn news.com

ISLAMABAD, Dec 18: The Foreign Office summoned the Indian deputy high commissioner on Thursday and conveyed ‘concerns’ over last week’s violation of Pakistani airspace by Indian Air Force jets.

“The Indian deputy high commissioner was called to the Foreign Office today and a diplomatic note was handed over to him, conveying the concern of the Government of Pakistan on technical and airspace violations by Indian aircraft on December 12 and 13, 2008, in non-conformity with the 1991 agreement between Pakistan and India on prevention of airspace violations,” said Foreign Office Spokesman Mr Muhammad Sadiq.:angry::tup:

Additional Secretary Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry handed over the diplomatic note to the Indian diplomat, Manpreet Vohra.

Besides expressing concern over the incident, the note asked India to explain its position.

Mr Vohra reiterated the Indian position and said that the complaint would be communicated to New Delhi.

The handing over of the note almost a week after violations by Indian fighter planes of airspace over Lahore and Azad Kashmir represents a significant shift in Pakistan’s position on the issue. President Asif Ali Zardari had earlier downplayed the violations saying they were ‘inadvertent’ and ‘technical’.

The change in position, which has been noted with concern by India, marks a growing stiffening of Islamabad’s stance towards New Delhi.

The peace process between the two countries has already been suspended after the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had on Wednesday urged India to get in the cooperative mode, or else the two countries would be pushed back to the old days of hostility.:agree:
 
Ali Ettefagh
Tehran, Iran
Dr. Ali Ettefagh serves as a director of Highmore Global Corporation, an investment company in emerging markets of Eastern Europe, CIS, and the Middle East.

"India's Options Are Limited"
Whether justified or not, India shall be hard-pressed to adopt an American-style, "Bush Doctrine" posture of preemptive strikes against terrorists, or a policy of hitting back at any cost similar to adopted by Thatcherist Britain during the Falklands Episode.:eek::lol:
India simply does not have the right mix of military assets, or the internal commonality of ideas. It must also keep an eye on its international business networks. Customers abroad have presumed a peaceful democracy to be the backbone of long-term business arrangements. Foreign investment and customers will flee rapidly if instability and war escalate, especially where the opponent is a neighbor, armed with missiles and nuclear weapons and where an atmosphere of raw nerves, supercharged emotions and looming, deep old wounds in the background tend to cloud reason and diplomacy.

Thus, India shall have no choice but to forego military action and instead embark on building a broad international accord to isolate its rival -- pushing for tough sanctions or recognition that Pakistan’s failure as a sovereign state is perhaps as dangerous and brittle as Afghanistan or as lawless as Somalia these days. :lol:
To understand the current situation, it is important to recall the sequence of events, the bottled up anger and the reserved prejudices that have existed since the partiton of India and Pakistan based on arbitrary religious groupings and the time-tested, failed concept of setting up religious nation states in the old footprints of British colonial phantasms.

Let us remember that India and Pakistan have fought three wars since the partition, most recently in 1999. The Kashmir problem -- a residual of the partition -- has been the excuse or the main cause of each. And today, four decades after partition, there is only a fragile ceasefire in the disputed territory, not to mention UN Blue Helmet peacekeepers.

The dispute has festered within the British Commonwealth and the United Nations, and neither has followed up with an attempt to finally resolve the matter. The so-called “West” has often tilted towards supporting Pakistan against India and its itchy and abrasive, non-aligned politics. But India has advanced and has been discovered lately to be an attractive and convenient Western lever against China. The recent agreement to grant access to Western nuclear materials and technology to India, a non-signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, is a clear indicator of the shift in politics.

It's also worth considering whether Pakistan is a de facto failed state, as defined by Westphalian rules of sovereignty. This assessment ought not to be limited to India’s perspective. It must be a worldwide appraisal of a state that has hosted (and perhaps continues to host) al-Qaeda extremists, has nursed the development and growth of the Taliban and, in at least some parts of the country, has given sanctuary to criminals and drug smugglers who maintain a cozy, comfortable relationship with Pakistan's "state-within-the-state” Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Beyond that, Pakistan is suffering from deep financial damage as it wobbles towards getting a survival loan from the IMF and as concentration of tribal rivalries inside Pakistan have weakened the grip of the central government on affairs of the country. Agricultural commodity export prices have fallen and Pakistan is now burning through its very weak foreign currency reserves at a rate of about 1.5 billion a month. This is a classic case of candidacy for falling to pieces after the loosening of the military grip on a country of diverse tribal backgrounds -- as seen in Yugoslavia in 1990s.

Taking into account the constraints of history and the reality of its opponent, India's response to Mumbai will likely depend on its ability to prove its case and, more importantly, overcome American and British vetoes at the UN Security Council. That is doubtful, at least for now, as the U.S. is not yet prepared to let go of its pseudo-grip on Pakistan and especially its close relationship with the Pakistani army and intelligence system. India would also have to triumph over the relatively successful pro-Pakistani lobby in English language press and media outlets.:wave::crazy:

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
 
Besides many inconsistencies and massive exaggerations in your plan, I think PAF would be in deep trouble if simultaneous multiple attacks are directed both from East and West…


The multiple attacks is still a hypothesis and will it happen in reality, is anybody’s guess...Theory is always different from reality , and reality always comes with many surprises…:enjoy:

Dear X Man,

Firstly I did not start this thread !

Secondly what do you mean by a second front ? I guess the US / NATO right ! The US can open 10 fronts and they do not need the Indians as you well know. Hence when u start a thread with PAF two fronts its means the world is united and the war is limited to destroying the PAF and the missile capabilities.

Thirdly Israel is US is allies and in the event of a US strike they have as much as worry from a pakistan launch as India being in the same neighborhood.

Russia will get also involved in some ways as they have close ties in this region whether you like it or not.

Anyway lastly my comments atleast brought the thread on track.

Regards
 
^^^is there a "usefulness" of this thread? i mean really, where are we going with this thing?
 
^^^is there a "usefulness" of this thread? i mean really, where are we going with this thing?

There are seven pages worth of comments which means people care to comment on this thread.

Is there less traffic at your thread?
 
US and india don't really need to worry about this, when it comes to war,Pakistan will never have to defend on two fronts,we stop US invasion 58 years ago with nothing,we will do it again for our brother country without any hesitation
 
I can only speak about the US perspective. I live in the US, have extremely close WASP friends, and I've watched the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, the debates, the pundits on all sides (liberal, conservative, moderates). The US people have NO APPETITE for yet another invasion. They are mad about the Feds bailing out banks and auto-makers. The US people WILL NOT ALLOW its military to be deployed in yet another theater, namely Pakistan unless the US mainland suffers a terror attack that originates from Pakistani soil. This is almost impossible, hence PAF does not have to worry about fighting on 2 fronts.

However, shifting geo-politics in Afghanistan and Central Asia may warrant increased PAF presence on the western border and specific plans for managing contingencies from that front. If I were a Pak military planner, I would be worried about increased Indian influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia. I'm sure Pak military planners are smart people and have this on their radar.
 
The nukes continue to save us, otherwise we were also targets post 9-11, make no question about that. Our military is a credible deterrent as well, taking action against Pakistan's nukes would be pretty much declaring war on Islam in industrialized and rural south east Asia, connecting it to the Afghan conflict directly. This would be the worst insurgency scenario imaginable since post Vietnam. There could be about 60 million people available to defend Pakistan in a large scale confrontation, unless nuking Pakistan is a scenario being discussed by the whores of Babylon?


actually it may not be a bad scenario if you look at it in the context of localisation of conflict to afghnistan-pakistan region. then the concentration can be done to these two specific regions. also i have my doubts over anyone batting even an eyelid over pakistan. remember indian and pakistani muslims along with bangladeshi are considered the lowest by muslims world over (and impure as most are originated from Hindu converts and mixed marriages over centuries of invasions of ancient undivided india) so any idea that it shall be considered an attack on islam is fanatasy and typical approach to divide all things on religious lines. no offence but also i do not feel that this forum is the place to discuss issues in hindu-muslim context as its in bad taste. we are discussing purely political situations.
 
Actually the problem is again not of equipment but of the software and the avionics on board the machines now that will be the deciding factor. It is well known that PLAAF is still years from being able to match IAF then I have my severe doubts as to PAF being able to match IAF for the first time post independence. Till 1971 PAF always had the qualitative edge and it was only sheer force and determination that carried the day for India.
typical of bharati fanboys...

tell me how Gnat, Hunter, Mig-21, su-7 are inferior to 18 F-86 plus 12 F-104 equiped with 1st generation aim-9 (which btw had only 20-30% sucsess rate) and 100 none heat seekers equiped F-86?

Folland Gnat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

de Havilland Vampire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


these were the mainstay of IAF in 1965 and they were technically inferior to PAF ACs with gnats being more a trainer and vampires hardly being fighter worthy for 60s (45 era design)

Mig-21s only came in late 60s as a result of lessons of 65 war.

In 1971, IAF was still inducting Mig-21s and PAF the Mirage-IIIs. So it is redundant
 
watching too many hollywood/bollywood movies and reading jim clancy novels are we!

your comments are full of contradictions and un-substantiated at best "gossip". having said that its a good read.

wont mind you pointing out the contradictions that may need clarifications. as for the intel, i have my reasons for the same as am sure of what i am speaking. intel is good and post-9/11 RAW and CIA are co-operating extensively .... even in Predator raids. Your call to believe or not
 
Always Neutral; sir
thanks for your ever-unneutrality, this going fine, and we started to get some very usefull points,i guss the scene you tryed to potray here ,wasnt have any worth, & its makes your expectations, go down , its not any 1 fault , but plz keep russia out of your crunnt equations, to remind you, in the case you tried to put here, there "WOULD BE NO AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOTALY, DESTROYED AFTER 2 NUCKLEAR HITS BY PAKISTAN".

IRAN , CHINA & MAYBE RUSSIA WOULD BE ON PAKISTAN,S SIDE!
I SEE, 600 FIGHTER AIRCRAFTS FROM CHINA, 350 FROM PAKISTAN, 150 FROM IRAN WOULDBE LOOKING FOR , ANY OF YOUR DESIRED ALLIED COUNTRIES TARGETS!
BELIVE IT OR NOT, SURLY IT WILL END TO , A WORLD WAR111!
is this makes you happy
if not , let me know plz , i will paint a whole new picture for your peace



Am amazed by this post. I mean two nuclear strike destroying whole of afghanistan? surely you dont mean to say pakistan is going to use its entire inventory of nuclear weapons (about 100-120 warheads) in this? and if you mean you need less than that amount to take out even quarter of afghanistan, you have just surpassed the wonderland of alice in your ideas.:disagree:

and iran, china and maybe russia joining on Pak side?:

this is pure fantasy and fiction. wont happen. iran and china are not foolish and russia wont mind pak going down. pak is safe haven for chechen fighters too and its india against whom they may have to intervene which wont EVER happen much as you may like to think. There are only two armies in this world which are fighting nowadays, India and US. PA is running a sham in NWFP
 
Back
Top Bottom