That is why I talked about having a nuclear sub. For deterrence.
A good idea from
narrative standpoint but USN has been contending with these threats throughout the course of Cold War. They developed Los Angeles Class FAS to hunt and kill Soviet SSBN across the world during the era of Cold War. They also procuring more-capable Virginia Class and Seawolf class FAS since 2000.
Confessions of an American naval commander in 2015:
"Fast attack submarines are one of the most versatile military platforms the world has ever seen. Deep water and shallow water. Anti submarine and anti surface warfare. Carrier escort. Mine field detection. Deploy and retrieve special forces. Tomahawk strike. Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. Drug interdiction. And other stuff that shall remain nameless."
In addition to a fleet of some of the most capable FAS (30+ in total), they have developed a number of other assets for long-range ASW operations such as P-8 Poseidon aircraft (50+ in total) and the lesser-known SURTASS. In-fact, before taking action against a regional threat, I expect USN to make necessary preparations to neutralize naval forces of the opponent. They will turn entire Arabian Sea into a denial zone.
https://www.navy.com/about/equipment/vessels/submarines.html
https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/us-...ub-killer-planes-armed-with-flying-torpedoes/
https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/lambda-and-antisubmarine-warfare
https://dosits.org/galleries/technology-gallery/locating-objects-using-sonar/surtass-lfa-sonar/
Full-spectrum ASW doctrine is slowly but surely becoming a reality today:
https://thediplomat.com/2014/06/full-spectrum-anti-submarine-warfare/
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-06/hunt-full-spectrum-asw
Public disclosures tend to be limited in release of sensitive information [understandably] but you can do the math.
So even if we develop an SSBN, what would be its capabilities and how would we secure it from USN? Whatever we procure, we do not have the resources and technological capability to develop and afford something akin to lets say USS Ohio.
Bro, it is important to understand that Pakistani defenses are
India-centric in large part. An SSBN would provide us 2nd strike capability against India but it won't guarantee the same against an opponent the caliber of US.
Now, try to understand that I am not asserting that US [will] attack Pakistan (God forbid). My responses are in regards to how US can counter and neutralize Pakistan in the advent of hostilities (a completely hypothetical scenario). So take my input in this respect.
Your advice to Cuba would have been to mow US lawns or face complete annihilation just like your advice to Pakistan reflected by several of your posts in pdf.
Political priorities or whatever, the fact is that they didn't do anything even after the removal of Soviet missiles. They didn't do anything even when Cuba sent it's troops to Angola leaving the country much more vulnerable to US Naval or air attack.
You will get an answer from here:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis
To bring an end to Cuban Missile Crises, US and USSR agreed on the terms that USSR would call off its nuclear assets from Cuba but US will not destroy Cuba and would also denuclearize Turkey.
And lose Afghanistan in the process! Would it be worth it?
The cost-benefit analysis of such an invasion won't be carried out? If it is so easy for the US then why it didn't do the same to Iran which was much more vulnerable to missiles launched by surface and sub surface US assets in the Gulf? The answer is cost-benift analysis.
The loss of say a carrier or even a couple of warships will kill the morale of the entire Western world, would they be willing to risk it?
Will they have the stomach to take tremendous casualties in the process? Will their public support their invasion when coffins start arriving?
Iran does not have that kind of capability and neither do Pakistan or even India. Easy for you to predict such outcomes but reality is different. To give you an idea;
Yemen Houthi had a stockpile of cruise missiles which they used to sink Saudi and UAE [naval] vessels in two separate incidents. They attempted the same against a USN vessel known as USS Mason with 2 cruise missiles but one cruise missile was intercepted and the other fell into sea [i.e. electronic countermeasures]. USS Mason not only neutralized those cruise missiles but destroyed some of Houthi assets in Yemen in counter-response and then left.
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/us...s-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...issile-attacks-on-u-s-navy-ship-idUSKCN12C294
See the difference?
The so-called Iranian swarm attack tactic will fall flat on their faces, should they ever attempt it. FYI:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vy-will-defeat-irans-speedboats-idUSKCN1151SB
USN is [quietly] retrofitting all of its vessels with long-range photon laser beam weapon systems (and other assets) to negate the possibility of a swarm attack on its vessels as we speak. Photon laser beam weapon systems can engage any target on a moment's notice as soon as it is detected and do not run out of ammunition, mind you. A glimpse:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-drone-laser-weapon/index.html
Why US did not attack Iran?
US did not invade Iran due to actions of Saddam Hussein. Iraq used to be militarily strong and fought a 8-year long war with Iran; an unfortunate development that had a soothing effect on US-Iran enmity. However, Saddam was also unpredictable (his decision to invade Kuwait in 1990 shocked many) and a major threat to Israel. Occupation of Kuwait made it impossible for the US to ignore Iraq.
The only instance in which US directly assaulted Iran is known as "Operation Praying Mantis" in 1988. FYI:
http://www.navyhistory.org/2017/04/operation-praying-mantis-an-enterprise-combat-mission/
"As a result of the success of Operation Praying Mantis, the US Navy had no adverse encounters with Iran in the Gulf for more than two decades. The tactical success of Enterprise Battle Group was only exceeded by our opportunity defend our nation’s honor."
Iranian military might significantly eroded under the pressures of 8-year long war with Iraq (1980 - 1988) and Operation Praying Mantis (1988). Therefore, Iran was no longer deemed a credible threat until its nuclear weapons program came to limelight in 2004. What happened next is that CIA and MOSSAD collectively waged a covert war against Iranian nuclear weapons program which led to assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists and planting of a digital weapon (i.e. Stuxnet worm) that nearly killed an Iranian uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-days-stuxnet-cyber-weapon-2016-7
Conversely, US was developing powerful weapons to neutralize Iranian underground nuclear facilities and/or storage compounds in mountainous regions such as the conventional Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) and the nuclear B61-11 which can erase anything at 1000 feet depth (or possibly deeper) with its super-strong shockwaves. Plan was to locate "entrance points" of such underground facilities and drive these penetrators into them with pin-point accuracy so that an underground facility is turned into a tomb even in a region like Himalayas.
Iranian leadership eventually decided to compromise on its nuclear weapons program in 2015 to avert the possibility of a punishing assault from the US. FYI:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Contrary to perceptions of some, Iran has suffered a great deal at the hands of US and Iraq since 1980 but Iranian leadership is not stupid. Their rhetoric is for public consumption mostly but they fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Under the present set of circumstances, there is no point to invading Iran. Iran has developed a number of ballistic missiles to threaten Israel but the latter is deploying its ABM systems to counter them. This is all.
As per the US, we are already doing it, what's stopping them? 45pc of Afghan territory under Taliban control, they got their scapegoat.
And it's not "if Pakistan attempts to make things difficult for them in Afghanistan" rather it's if the US attempts an adventure then Pakistan could make things difficult for them in Afghanistan.
And now the US is "prevailing" in Afghanistan, since the Taliban don't have CIA's weapon systems. 45 percent of Afghan territory under Taliban control, the US is prevailing. The Russians had the excuse of stingers, what excuse does the US have? that Pakistan has been helping the Taliban and Haqqani network?
Do you honestly take everything they say at face value?
Their technological milestones and military capability is not in question [well-documented] but they also happen to be a master of dirty politics and imperialism. They are building an
Anti-Pakistan narrative for reasons unclear to us. Some say that CPEC is
the problem.
Time to address some misconceptions.
Resurgent Taliban is not the same organization that existed during the period (1995 - 2001) and managed to secure 95% of the country; US decimated the original organization with massive firepower in a major combat operation that took place during the course of October 2001 - March 2002, ending with the conclusion of Operation Anaconda in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan. During this span, thousands of Taliban and Al-Qaeda Network operatives perished in the battlefield, thousands more surrendered and were suffocated to death in airtight containers [not joking] and even the seemingly unconquerable cave complexes of Tora Bora [that withstood Soviet onslaught in the 1980s] were taken out by March 2002.
"After the air campaign softened Taliban defenses, the coalition began a ground invasion, with Northern Alliance forces providing most of the troops and the U.S. and other nations giving air and ground support. On November 12, a little over a month after the military action began, Taliban officials and their forces retreated from the capital of Kabul. By early December, Kandahar, the last Taliban stronghold, had fallen and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar went into hiding rather than surrender. Al-Qaida fighters continued to hide out in Afghanistan’s mountainous Tora Bora region, where they were engaged by anti-Taliban Afghan forces, backed by U.S. Special Forces troops. Al-Qaida soon initiated a truce, which is now believed to have been a ploy to allow Osama bin Laden and other key al-Qaida members time to escape into neighboring Pakistan. By mid-December, the bunker and cave complex used by al-Qaida at Tora Bora had been captured, but there was no sign of bin Laden."
I vividly recall
that show of force and one of my friends remarked that that kind of power projection would be sufficient to flatten entire Pakistan (metaphorically speaking). In-fact,
that show of force made a lasting impression on Pakistani military establishment as well and it has not worn off to this day.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9148/index1.html
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-led-attack-on-afghanistan-begins
In the aftermath, Afghanistan remained peaceful for 2 straight years till 2004. Now, watch this video to understand how modern-era Taliban emerged:
As Pervez Musharraf aptly put,
resurgent Taliban is the outcome of ill-advised persecution of
Pashtun tribes and families on the behest of Northern factions for their ties with the original Taliban (independently verifiable accounts), and this organization is much smarter than the former. I am not sure if this was a political miscalculation on the part of US or deliberate but these developments revived chaotic conditions in Afghanistan in 2004. Conversely, US shifted its attention to Middle East and Afghanistan became "secondary."
Resurgent Taliban does not actually control 45 percent of Afghan territory and there are no
front-lines. This is an [elusive enemy] which has the capacity to conduct hit-and-run operations against softer targets like ANA and the Afghan government across the country. When these battles occur, some wrongly assume that Taliban is chipping away more territory from Afghan government; this is clearly not the case. Reality is that Afghan government does not have the resources and manpower to establish its writ across entire the country because ANA is plagued with defections; there are numerous 'ungoverned spaces' in the country where
resurgent Taliban can operate without any hassle. Now, these battles are costly to belligerents in terms of men and material and contribute to erode the [already limited] capacity of the Afghan government to manage its affairs. However, Afghan government has an unfortunate tendency to blame Pakistan for its problems.
Even a lesser known reality is that US has history of raising
militias in Afghanistan to counter
resurgent Taliban since 2009; this is a controversial strategy to address the referred problem because militias lack in discipline and/or have a history of alienating common Afghans with their lack of ethics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/world/asia/afghan-local-police.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/19/afghanistan-militias-us-un-diplomats
Afghanistan is arguably a lost cause because this nation is fraught with internal rivalries and Tribal politics, and it may not be feasible to fix its problems. Trump administration has decided against "nation-building" program in Afghanistan and is looking forward to revive militias to counter
resurgent Taliban in the "ungoverned spaces" of the country. Haqqani Network is just a "convenient boogeyman" to
harass Pakistan and to mask controversial experiments in Afghanistan. Numerous times, ISPR and other sources have requested US to provide concrete evidence of so-called Haqqani Network in Pakistan, but nothing.
I am looking to a day when a Pakistani PM will pay a visit to Donald Trump and tell him on his face to provide evidence or STFU.
Do you think that any Pakistani politician have that kind of guts?
I am really glad that Pakistani military establishment took a stern action against terrorists and/or rogue elements within our country irrespective of difficulties involved; progress was slow, painful and at great cost, but a necessary development in the end. Fencing of Durand Line and sending all Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan should be our top priority these days.
NOW;
Situation in Afghanistan SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED with the capacity of the US to wage war with another country, should the need arise. US military is enormous in size and resources ample. In case you didn't notice, US took action against Iraq (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom), Libya (i.e. Operation Falcon Freedom) and ISIS across Syria and Iraq (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve) while remaining engaged in Afghanistan.
However, they do not have a 'convincing case' to take action against Pakistan. Entire world bear witness to Pakistani efforts against the menace of terrorism in the region and Trump administration is not fooling anybody in this respect.
Now, you see the wisdom in Pakistani efforts against terrorism?
Scores of Pakistani assert that this war was imposed on us but I argue that it was in the best interests of Pakistan to tackle the menace of terrorism within its territory at the least.
Technology like gunships and airplanes make the task of the guerilla difficult but not impossible. CIA got involved in 82, prior to that the Afghans were fighting with the help of Pakistan alone.
"......one-thousand-pound parcel bomb opens in the air to
strew a hundred anti-personnel bombs over as many yards - a
weapon far more effective against guerrillas than the concentrated
detonation of a single high-explosive missile.
New amphibious gun carriers can penetrate the deepest swamps
and marshes. Infra-red and heat-sensitive sniperscopes detect
guerrillas in the dark. A later model operates by magnifying the
light of the stars. Mobile radar units can spot infiltrators on the
ground at a thousand yards. Silent weapons make the trained
guerrilla-hunter patrol even harder to detect than guerrillas themselves.
Yet when all is said and done, even the counter-insurgency
experts admit that technology alone can never defeat guerrillas: it
can only make their task more difficult and dangerous." -The war of the flea
You have a point here but I think that we cannot generalize in this respect.
Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS across Iraq and Syria is a success story for instance. USAF pounded ISIS-held positions with precision strikes and
local militias (YPG in Syria) and security forces (Iraqi security forces in Iraq) were employed by US army to consolidate gains on the ground with US army taking care of coordination and monitoring activities and providing offensive support where-ever necessary. Of-course, additional elements were also involved in the fight against ISIS such as Iranian militias and Russia [to a limited extent] but US did the heavy-lifting.
Nonetheless, insurgency in itself cannot work without finances, access to weapons, ability to attract new recruits and external support. My point of contention is that the so-called
Mujahideen stood no chance against the Red Army on their own in the absence of the aforementioned ingredients.
However, Afghanistan is a region where nothing makes sense. Afghan tribes do not get along with each other and this country will continue to experience bouts of insurgencies and infighting for indefinite period unless something drastic happens.
How about testing a nuke in Afghanistan?
1- Op Neptune spear was a plan(like bay of pigs) and did not occur as you claim.
2- Their is a difference between stealthy commando raid and a full scale strike. OBL raid - Even the seals were told by their officers to surrender if cornered by Pakistani forces, the PAF fighters were not cleared to engage by their superiors. Now cowardice is one thing and being totally helpless is quiet another.
1. CIA-led operation that occurred in Abbottabad in 2011 to assassinate Osama Bin Laden (and his chief confidants) is officially designated "Operation Neptune Spear."
2. Of-course, to assault Pakistani strategic targets, an operation of a much larger scale is necessary. If US brings a large force to Afghanistan, this will definitely raise some eyebrows. However, I don't think they will do this under present circumstances. They are committing only 16000 troops to Afghanistan at present.
3. I think that some Pakistani are being unnecessarily harsh on PAF. I have studied this operation in detail (from
technical standpoint) and my assessment is that USAF somehow
spoofed Pakistani radar installations on that day in order to prevent a timely response from PAF. This makes sense because one of the Western sources disclosed the fact that USAF brought a number of other assets to bear on that day in support of Operation Neptune Spear and Pakistani ACM of the time confessed in the Abbottabad Commission Report that none of the active Pakistani radar installations saw anything unusual during the course of operation. This is why PAF did not mobilize to counter intruders. However, he pointed out that as soon as he received information of the raid, two PAF F-16 aircraft were scrambled to intercept intruders but it was too late by then.
This image is very telling:
https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mapspear.jpg
I get the impression that Operation Neptune Spear provided technical insight in regards to contingency theory of assaulting Pakistani strategic assets, should the need arise (God forbid).
3- What happened after Salala, (which was a border outpost totally vulnerable to air attack and not some strategic asset of Pakistan) was that the NATO supply routes were closed which knocked sense into arrogant American brains.
4- It all comes down to the leadership if you have sellouts and cowards then of course you wouldn't dare to respond.
Agreed.
Ball is in Trump's court. We are not the ones issuing threats.
Ties will be mended when the US stops demanding Pakistan to do more. We cannot afford to start a fire in our country to appease the US or to mend ties (we did that in the past).
Agreed.
It's not a walk in the park to seize Pak's nukes.
The US military failed many times and many of their plans ended up as failures, history is a testament to that.
Of-course it is not. However, Operation Neptune Spear happened and Pakistani military establishment has ample reason to worry. In-fact, this was the major concern of General Kiyani in the aftermath of that operation as apparent from his conversation with his comrades which received limelight in the Abbottabad Commission Report.
Contrary to perceptions of some, US military has unprecedented accomplishments under its belt since its inception. Some of its crown accomplishments include defeating the Spanish in Americas, Wehrmacht in Europe, the Japanese in the Pacific and Operation Desert Storm in 1991. In-fact, the mighty British Empire was their
first adversary. Nonetheless, setbacks are valuable instructors and US has learned a great deal from its experiences during the era of Cold War in particular. Just look at the difference in the conduct of US military in the Korean War (1951) and Operation Desert Storm (1991); it is like the difference between night and day.
At present, US military is a knowledge intensive and incredibly resourceful network-centric force, designed to tackle a near-peer adversary in a high-intensity engagement. Their training programs are also considerably more extensive than those of other states.
Point is that operations that were deemed impossible in earlier times, are becoming a reality today as relevant technologies continue to advance. Just look at the difference between Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 and Operation Neptune Spear in 2011 for instance.
The intruder will not ask to "mend ties" when he has already decided to plunder you or rape you. You can either lay down infront of him like a prostitute or offer resistance. You have no other choice, what will you do?
The Taliban offered to extradite Osama but they couldn't do anything since the plans to invade their country were finalized in June 2001 and they had to be executed regardless of any attempt by the Taliban to "mend ties". The additional objective of the US invasion was regime change, considering the Taliban influence has that objective been achieved after 17 years and trillions of dollars and thousands of casualties?
Pakistan does not want a war with the US, but what will you do if the US forces a war upon us?
The wolf will always come up with a justification for his invasion.
View attachment 446590
If war is 'imposed' on us then we do not have any option but to fight back. What happens next, is open to debate but it is better to die with dignity than give up and face humiliation. Unfortunately, this is the reality; some prefer to die with dignity and some are willing to surrender.
While every effort should be expended to avert a major tragedy through diplomatic channels but there is a limit to everything. I believe that Trump administration can be reasoned with but our nation have chosen corrupt (and incompetent) fools to manage our affairs. So is it really wise to blame Trump administration only?
The victor has always been the US.
View attachment 446591
Much has changed since Vietnam, my friend. Why we stuck in the past?
These are mere excuses.
In the opening phase the Taliban strategy was flawed that is why they failed.
At the peak of the conflict, 130k US troops were in Afghanistan because they weren't taking those conflicts seriously? Are their ops run by professional generals or comedians who fail to "take anything seriously"?
Or
American defense industries dictate the terms of their engagements in the long-term? They are the major beneficiaries of prolonged conflicts, I presume.
This disclosure is enlightening nonetheless:
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/nation-building.html
The aforementioned disclosure suggest that political priorities do actually influence the outcome of a war. Even Musharraf pointed out in his interview that military by itself does not provide final victory in a conflict, a sound political commitment and strategy is necessary on top.
You don't need massive defense budget and space wars to grow a pair. No one is talking about invading the US but defending our own interests and not bowing down to every single American demand. We don't have to be at par with them militarily but rather have a credible minimum deterrence to stop any of their plans in it's tracks.
@Desert Fox
Sure.
