What Would a Hypothetical U.S.-Pakistan War Look Like?

[PakFactor]

It is possible. And only thing which can deter India from helping Americans is Pakistani nuclear weapons. Americans would destroy Pakistani air force and army and Indians would capture land. And Pakistan would cease to exist after war

Nuclear weapons are the clown jewels that’s keeping the state from ceasing to exist. Pakistan for all intents and purposes really need to invest more in nuclear tech and missiles — ICBM or SLBM; to put any nation including US as part of its target list in retaliation.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

It is possible. And only thing which can deter India from helping Americans is Pakistani nuclear weapons. Americans would destroy Pakistani air force and army and Indians would capture land. And Pakistan would cease to exist after war

NO, India will never try to captured pak land... only disputed territory is GB and Pak Kashmir.

Rest parts, no one cares in India.

As said, it is not possible by Land... they will only make the life hell.

 

[Saudang]

In an Air war, PAF will not come in direct contact with the USAF or the US Navy fighters before getting shootdown..

A land invasion is very unlikely and extremely difficult to succeed ..

The PAF and Navy will be annihilated in few days to few weeks ..

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

There won't be any functional Pakistan left in the end.

And we would also make sure that there would not be many other non-functional enemy states left behind either.

 

[Hareeb]

I read somewhere a RAND study was already conducted years ago, and it was concluded that even without nuclear weapons, it was not feasible to attack Pakistan. Iran was much better option at that time.

 

[khanmubashir]

View attachment 766764

What Would a Hypothetical U.S.-Pakistan War Look Like?
One word: Hell.

by Kyle Mizokami

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?

In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.

A prolonged U.S. air campaign would be a difficult proposition. Unlike past campaigns against Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, Washington would find regional allies who could provide air bases a difficult proposition. Pakistan enjoys warm relations with most of the Sunni states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both of whom have air bases capable of hosting U.S. tactical aircraft, as well as Saudi Arabia and Oman.

A U.S. air campaign directed against Pakistan would largely consist of bomber, carrier, and cruise missiles strikes. Strategic bombers, including the B-1, B-2, and B-52 would conduct strikes from the continental United States and the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Only these aircraft have the range to strike targets in Pakistan from friendly bases. Depending on the level of international support, long-range bombers could also launch from the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford, improving sortie rates.

The U.S. Navy would play a major role. U.S. forces would neutralize the relatively weak Pakistani Navy. While the Pakistani Navy operates about one hundred ships, it has only a handful of surface combatants of frigate size or larger, and just five aging diesel-electric submarines. Once these are neutralized the U.S. Navy could bring its aircraft carriers closer to the coastline, conducting airstrikes against military targets. Surface warships and nuclear-powered attack submarines would contribute by launching swarms of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles against highly defended targets.

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

The Pakistani Army consists of nearly 800,000 active-duty personnel, with significant reserves totaling more than a half-million. Much if not most of this force is arrayed against the border with India, but the U.S. invasion route would actually pass through many of Pakistan’s forward-deployed forces. While U.S. forces would be qualitatively superior, it would be a grinding fight that could be interrupted at any time by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan. India has seldom cooperated with the United States in military operations, declining to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. India’s cooperation would largely depend on the circumstance, the most likely being the U.S. joining an Indian-led coalition against Pakistan.

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072

So in end cost of war Willbe too high for USA
No guarantee that all nukes will be neutralised
And if Pak uses nukes in retaliation
Global catastrophe
The same reason USA didn't invade mug smaller north Korea

Who said that they will send the force by land?

Regarding logistics support, US has all kind of required support by air and water.

Just think that 24 submarines with 24 tripped nuclear missiles each borad are reaching to near by and safe distance from Pakistani water....

What other options left for any country including Pakistan? Submarines with 200+ nuclear missiles?

No way, no chance.. There is a reason to called them " Super power".

I said that they hit so hard with the power, you will have only one option to left.... Surrender.

Germany and Japan did the same during the war. Finally, you want that peope of your country should be survived..

Germany and Japan did not have nukes Sonny
North Korea does and USA didn't even attack em
Read the article
The ear would be terrible for USA and would be fought only as a last resort

So don't start dancing USA ain't fighting your fights you would have to grow balls to fight your own

 

[LeGenD]

There is a difference between thugs & target killers vs an invading force. thugs and target killers don't wear uniforms. Another thing is that these thugs and target killers look like you and me, while the US military will not be so able to hide among the general population.

Now i am not saying that Pakistan will win that war, however the US victory will be extremely costly and the occupation of 220Mil people majority of whom are young and with vast reserves of weapons available, it will not be a walk in the park.

If it was easy to occupy Pakistan, then India would have done it by now.

I agree with Pakistan not being a 'walk-in-the-park' part. Pakistan is a big country after all. But let us have a look at the bigger picture and other details.

Target killers were visible threats on the streets to say the least. When Los Angeles became like Karachi for 2 days in 1992, many American shopkeepers took up arms and exchanged fire with thugs and target killers near their stores. There was a price to pay in case of looting stores and/or to demand ransom from shopkeepers. This continued until National Guard came.

Shopkeepers in Karachi however... I don't blame them because many are not fighters to begin with but from where the martial race assumption is coming from? Mostly in media depictions.

Pakistan is a land of mixed realities. Some locations are much better armed than others. Some locations have people who have combat knowhow but this is not the case in others. Some locations are also much better developed than others. Therefore.

India and Pakistan - each have 'armed forces' suitable for defensive roles in large part. Neither have sufficient conventional military muscle to invade and occupy another country having a population in the order of crores in modern times.

It took Pakistani armed forces several years to clear Waziristan due to a combination of factors such as heavy resistance (TTP), logistics limitations and economic limitations. Waziristan is but a sector of Pakistan in geographical terms.

Just imagine the amount of resources needed to invade and occupy a country the size of a Pakistani province let alone India. Pakistan Army experienced significant problems inside Indian mainland in 1965, and also inside IOK in 1999 due to heavy Indian resistance and limited resources in both developments.

India managed to invade and occupy IOK because it is lightly armed and landlocked location.

India took advantage of Pakistani Civil War in Bangladesh in 1971; Pakistan could not resupply Bangladesh due to geography factor and logistics limitations.

Pakistani 'armed forces' are good enough to keep India at bay under normal circumstances - always had been. Pakistan also have a calculative Foreign Policy. Therefore, WE managed well in the long-term.

- - - - -

USA have 'armed forces' suitable for both defensive and offensive roles. USAF and USN are on another level in comparison to Pakistani or Indian in both quantity and quality.

A well-equipped modernized military force can be used to destroy an entire city if necessary; Fallujah and Raqqa are modern case studies.

USAF and USN have sufficient firepower to conduct 'strategic bombing' to devastate entire landscapes and/or eliminate entire population bases in fact (political decision of-course). Firepower of this scale and intensity was witnessed in times of World War II only.

WE need to keep in mind what USAF and USN can do rather than what American forces can do on the ground. WE are looking at a potent combination of Air-Land-Sea in this case.

Indian 'armed forces' cannot invade and occupy Pakistan but chief concern is what they can do under the shadow of USA. This scenario haunted Pervez Musharraf in 2001. This scenario is hinted in the book "In the Line of Fire."

- - - - -

Of-course, the effort to invade and occupy a country such as Pakistan (big geography and population), is not without significant consequences. This move would result in a major humanitarian crisis in the region - discouraging factor in itself. Unless there is complete disregard for human life in American circles (God forbid).

Pakistan have a significant nuclear weapons program as well. USA will have to redirect a chunk of its theater defenses to the region to protect both India and Israel just in case. Unless both are expendable assets in American calculus? - another discouraging factor.

USA is well-equipped to dismantle 'any' regional power including Pakistan in conventional terms. However, humanitarian considerations and political motivations are in view. This won't happen until or unless a regional power goes too far in terms of undermining American interests - on global scale or close.

- - - - -

But why would USA invade Pakistan to begin with? Pakistan does not threaten American interests on global scale and Pakistan have always kept its door open for negotiations with Americans.

Contrary to impression given on PDF, Pakistan and USA do not hate each other to the core. Pakistan was even able to influence the course of war in Afghanistan by bringing USA and Afghan Taliban to the negotiation table. Pakistan is also exploring new avenues to work with USA in the region (Central Asian QUAD being a start).

So WE need to chill, and I might smoke this thread.

 

[AbuzarIlyas]

Are you talking about a WW3? Because Pakistan can technically attack the coastal cities of United States with its nuclear capable submarine launched cruise missiles resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens as well as the US interests in the Asia and Africa will be nullified. And the uranium clouds will affect all over the continents for decades to come.

It is called a mutual destruction.

 

[LeGenD]

Are you talking about a WW3? Because Pakistan can technically attack the coastal cities of United States with its nuclear capable submarine launched cruise missiles resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens as well as the US interests in the Asia and Africa will be nullified. And the uranium clouds will affect all over the continents for decades to come.

It is called a mutual destruction.

Err, which class of submarine is this? WE need something on the lines of Ohio class to do that.

 

[Trango Towers]

There won't be any functional Pakistan left in the end.

True but neither will the masters of America....Israel. at least the world will be free

 

[Genghis khan1]

US back in 2011 were thinking about invading FATA, Pakistan.

True. Beginning 2008 CIA started tracking bin Laden courier. 2009 to 2010 US did troop and air assets buildup in Afghanistan. Late 2010 plans were ready for Bin laden raid and USAF air mobility command and all combat commands had their contingency plans in place to respond with 24-48 hours notice to transport additional troop Incase of war. Everything in media about how and what is mostly stories.

 

[313ghazi]

I think it would look like this...

1. PAF and PIA assets used to flly military elite away to Europe and Middle East
2. PIA assets used to fly political elite away to Europe and Middle East
3. Awam left to fight the war.

We are a flat country doubt we could have survived it like the Afghans

Pakistan is not flat, although most of Sindh and Punjab is.

 

[Genghis khan1]

US will simply sanction pakistan
People will buckle under force of lack of imported cheese and brands and viola there u go

True. Stop the import of tea and people will start a riot.

 

[Pakistan First]

A "start" of a hypothetical US-PAK war would look like a CIA-textbook proxy war.

START:
- Full throttle attacks by TTP, BLA, MQM sleeper-cells.
- JUI(F)-PML(N)-PPP-Achakzai-PTM led mass protests and civil-unrest.
- Economic sanctions and freezing of Pakistan's foreign assets under pretext of sponsoring terrorism using FATF/IMF as a tool.
- Small scale war with India.

How it'll progress and conclude requires a much longer response.

 

[Adecypher]

Conventional War between US and Pakistan is a stupid scenario … there is no match … not worthy of analysis IMHO … eventually trigger WW3…

btw proxy war to kai salon say Pakistan ke khilaaf chal rahi hey usse Pakistan ko kuch nahi hoga …