Why does our Navy fail so horribly?

[LeGenD]

Before I even begin, I must say that we both have taken quite a bit of liberty with 'assumptions', so blaming just me is unfair. Your post, too, is full of assumptions.

No, my post is not full of assumptions. Most of my points are based on concrete facts. Difference is that my grasp of ground realities is much greater then yours. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this post is only to educate you.

US military might is shaped for power projection in any corner of the world and US defensive capabilities have been designed on the basis of threat perceptions that far exceed our own. US defence budget alone should give any educated person a clue in this regard. There is simply no comparison with Pakistan in these aspects.

Let see, was the US able to stone Afghanistan back to the stone age?

Brother, seriously? Do you think that Afghanistan had much infrastructure to loose this time after decades of war?

Don't take the word too literally, even Iraq could not be bombed back to the 'stone' age.

Keeping in mind the firepower that US possesses, such statements should be taken seriously. The objective of US in Iraq was not to flatten the entire country. However, Iraqi military infrastructure was damaged to such an extent that Iraqi forces were using 'letters via hand delivery method' for communication purposes during the final days. And Iraqi industrial capability also have been destroyed.

Iraq is currently relying on its oil exports for revenue generation – a luxury that Pakistan does not have.

Besides, if it was the responsibility of the US to complete her homework, was it not our responsibility to complete ours?

Musharraf did his homework too. And he made his decision on the basis of his homework.

Having said all that, I never said that Musharraf's decision was incorrect, I totally agree to it. I merely said that the reason at that time was more specifically financial as the US had the power to punish us severely politically & financially.

Read this:

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, was an uneventful day in Pakistan, at least while the sun was high. That evening I was in Karachi, inspecting work at the beautiful gardens of the mausoleum of our founder Quaide-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I was happy to be in the city I love.

Little did I know that we were about to be thrust into the front line of yet another war, a war against shadows.

My military secretary came up to me and whispered: an aircraft had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City. At first, I dismissed the news report as an accident involving what I thought must have been a light private aircraft. But at the back of my mind there was the nagging thought that this had to be a most peculiar accident. Either the pilot had to be utterly inept to have hit such a tall building, or the plane had to be so totally out of control that it couldn’t be prevented from hitting the tower.

When I returned home, I went directly into a meeting with Karachi’s corps commander. We were deep in discussion when my military secretary slipped into the room and started fiddling with the television set.

I could not believe what I saw. Smoke was billowing out of both towers of the World Trade Centre. People were jumping out of windows. There was sheer panic, utter chaos. Two fuel-laden Boeings full of passengers had been hijacked and deliberately crashed into the twin towers. This could hardly be an accident — it had to be a deliberate, brazen act of terrorism. Two other aircraft had also been hijacked — one had hit the Pentagon; another had gone down in a field in Pennsylvania. Commentators at the time said that second one had been heading for the White House. This was war.

The enormity of the event was palpable. The world’s most powerful country had been attacked on its own soil, with its own aircraft used as missiles. This was a great tragedy, and a great blow to the ego of the superpower. America was sure to react violently, like a wounded bear. If the perpetrator turned out to be al-Qaeda, then that wounded bear would come charging straight toward us.

Al-Qaeda was based in neighbouring Afghanistan under the protection of those international pariahs, the Taleban. Not only that: we were the only country maintaining diplomatic relations with the Taleban and their leader, Mullah Omar. September 11 marked an irrevocable turn from the past into an unknown future. The world would never be the same.

I went to the Governor House. The foreign office advised me to give a statement. I wrote one quickly and said on national television that we condemned this vile act, that we were against all forms of terrorism and stood with America at this appalling time. The next morning I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor’s House when my military secretary told me that the US secretary of state, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting. Powell was quite candid: "You are either with us or against us."

I took this as a blatant ultimatum. However, contrary to some reports, that conversation did not get into specifics. I told him that we were with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country against it.

When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage. In what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director-general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard.

I made a dispassionate, military-style analysis of our options, weighing the pros and cons.

My decision was based on the wellbeing of my people and the best interests of my country — Pakistan always comes first. I war-gamed the United States as an adversary. There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn’t support the United States. Thus the question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no, we could not, on three counts.

First was our military weakness as compared with the strength of the United States. Second was our economic weakness. We had no oil, and we did not have the capacity to sustain our economy in the face of an attack. Third, and worst of all, was our social weakness. We lack the homogeneity to galvanise the entire nation into an active confrontation. We could not endure a military confrontation with the United States from any point of view. The ultimate question that confronted me was whether it was in our national interest to destroy ourselves for the Taleban. Were they worth committing suicide over? The answer was a resounding no.

It has famously been said that “short-term gain for long-term pain” is foolhardy, but this is exactly what happened to the allies in the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, not least the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Source: In the Line of Fire (from Pervaiz Musharraf)

By the way this is your assumption that the US would have carried out any homework on Pakistan as their arrogance would have posed us as nothing more then an annoying fly.

Keep on day dreaming. US was heavily motivated to hit back hard after 9/11 event. Pakistan was the first nation that US threatened in such a blatant manner.

2001 was an ideal time to attack Pakistan. This nation was weak both militarily and economically. Nuclear capability was inadequate due to amateur and vulnerable delivery options. And India was in the mood to hurt Pakistan along with USA.

Thanks to wise decision by Musharraf, he saved this nation from devastating consequences. And some people still question Musharraf's decision to join WOT and label him a coward! Bunch of ignorant fools.

Fact is that Pak-US alliance in WOT is not based on mutual respect since the beginning. Pakistan has been coerced to join this war.

Well, the only weapons that can hit Pakistan all the way from America are american ICBM's that will have to fly over 'China' or 'Russia' to strike us. None of these countries would allow that.

An ICBM missile goes in to space during its flight path. Russia and China cannot impose restrictions on flights in space.

Another thing is that US have other means to strike Pakistan from massive distances; SLBM and long range Bombers. Do the math now.

An example of US SLBM:

That leaves only the Naval BCG's which would be well within our reach as well.

No. See above.

So are most of the American bases around us.

This means attacking other Islamic nations. Not a good option.

And your assumption that the US would have used ICBM's.

I am talking about a 'hypothetical scenario' but it is very realistic and not based on assumptions.

Since I am personally an avid Musharraf supporter, I agree to this point but I stick to my point that Musharraf did that only because he knew how the US could have hurt us financially.

See above. Your argument has been defeated.

And your assumption that all our submarines will be detected and destroyed.

This is also not an assumption. USA has deployed several layers of maritime surveillance technologies in Pacific and Atlantic oceans to monitor all kinds of naval vessels and natural phenomenon.

Qing class submarines have been designed to fire cruise missiles. What this means is that these submarines will have to get very close to continental US to strike. This is extremely risky maneuver and the submarines will end up getting detected and destroyed on short notice.

By the way, Pakistan does not even have cruise missiles for these kinds of roles.

Pakistan/US Nuclear showdown would be detrimental to the whole world, especially China & India because of the Nuclear fallout and ensuing consequences.

Indeed. Nuclear strikes in Pakistan will also leave devastating effects on neighboring countries.

Just a single powerful US nuclear bomb can do this:

For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.

My most important assumption is that the US would not want a Nuclear showdown.

This entirely depends upon the circumstances. If USA will be threatened with nuclear weapons, the latter will get legitimacy to do the same. And the world can do nothing except diplomatically attempt to convince both sides to give up.

Again your assumption that a) we have no ICBM & b) that the US is aware of all our technological achievements and acquisitions. My friend simply put, if the US can transfer the Trident ICBM's to England so can China transfer them to Pakistan.

For (a); we do not have an ICBM. This is confirmed thing. If China have parked a few ICBM here then where is the evidence? And you think that world will never come to know about this kind of development?

For (b); we do not know that how much USA knows about Pakistani strategic assets. However, in case of major hostilities (God forbid), do expect some surprises. USA is continuously monitoring important developments in Pakistan since 2001. Even US satellites are being used for these purposes.

The only reason the US & Russia have not engaged each other in a war is because of the possibility of a Nuclear attack....Nuclear weapons are the most important deterrence any country can have.

Russia have most advanced nuclear capability after USA in the whole world and size of its arsenal is such that it guarantees MAD with USA. The case of Pakistan is entirely different; we are relatively an infant in comparison.

And you talk about deterrence? How have US managed to violate our sovereignty so many times during WOT regardless of our nuclear capability? Now you will say that our leaders do not have spine. This is not the whole truth. Our leaders know their limits.

Pakistani nuclear deterrence works against India because we ensure MAD with this nation. However, against USA, the ballgame is entirely different.

Yet again you assume that the American ABM systems are 100% foolproof despite the fact that PAC systems failed miserably whenever used. No wonder the US had to purchase an S-300 system to study. No system in the world is fool proof.

The ABM capabilities of USA have made significant progress from PAC.

Here is very useful link which will keep you updated: The Ballistic Missile Defense System

The systems like Aegis, THAAD, and GMD are much more advanced then PAC (NOTE: PAC is a low-tier missile defense system).

Also, PAC system has matured by now. Failures of PAC 1 do not apply to PAC 3. Even PAC 2 system has record of intercepting Ballistic Missiles.

The entire system may not be foolproof but it guarantees absolute protection from nuclear assaults of limited proportions. And Pakistan is not even close to develop capabilities that can push these systems to limits.

We were in the process of development of an ICBM 'Taimur', it's progress was supposedly halted by Musharraf but nobody is certain at which stage the process it. We may have ICBM's already but unlike India we do not have the habit of bold claims before actual achievements.

We do have an ICBM program but developments are either extremely slow or halted due to financial constraints. ICBM system is very complex and expensive to develop and maintain in comparison to our existing missile systems. In addition, our threat perception is mainly limited to India with whom we have ensured MAD by now. ICBM will invite unwanted international attention in these uncertain times. North Korea and Iran are valid analogies for Pakistan in this aspect. The last thing we need to do is to give US more excuse to include Pakistan in its threat perceptions.

Even if we have something, it is in early prototype stage. My belief is that we have a working prototype of a ballistic missile with 3000-4000km range currently, at maximum.

Even in 1998, India and the rest of the world was quite certain we did not have the technology to test a Nuclear weapon.....but we had it for a long time even before that.

Pakistani nuclear related developments were well known in US prior to the tests. Fact is that neither Pakistan and nor US disclosed much information on these matters due to COLD WAR based factor. Pakistan was a valuable asset for US in its crusade against USSR. Secrecy of sensitive programs had to be respected. However, with empowerment of media sources worldwide, it has become more difficult to ensure secrecy for prolonged periods.

We may not have 'true' second strike capability as in Nuclear Missile Subs but we do have silos deep underground, scattered and mostly hidden from the world. Nobody knows how many Nuclear Weapons we actually possess and where they are stored so how can the US ensure destruction of them all?

USA possesses Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) systems which can give it vital clues about location of underground facilities.

And then USA also have these kinds of nuclear weapons:

US can send these bombs right in to entrance points of underground facilities, which will do the trick.

I mean detonation of even a single device on mainland US in retaliation for an attack on us would mean a major and unbelievable setback for the US.

American society is mentally prepared for this kind of eventuality. All US administrations indoctrinate US populace for this type of threat.

This reminds me of a scene in the movie '300', when King Leonidas throws a spear at the false god 'Xerxes' and it scratches his cheek.....all it proves is the fact that only a human can bleed and not a true God. Would the US accept the possibility of realisation in the rest of the world that even the US can bleed?

I am not saying that US is invincible. Never.

However, fact is that US is significantly more powerful then Pakistan and it can hurt Pakistan in such ways that it is difficult for us to imagine. Pakistan's offensive capabilities are shaped according to 'minimum possible deterrence' based doctrine. This is due to our very limited resources. In comparison, US have far greater economy, R&D infrastructure, and military capability. There is simply no comparison.

What US have demonstrated in WOT is peanuts in comparison to what it can really do to its opponents.

Well my friend, my patriotism does not allow me to accept any collateral damage of my countrymen from any power of the world so maybe the translation and lateral meaning of 'patriotism' is different fundamentally in our dictionaries!

I am patriotic too. However, I am not blind to ground realities around me.

Fortunately I can tell you that a Nuclear strike would not be the first option, it would most certainly be the last option that we commit before our annihilation but......but the resolve itself, if firm enough to get through to the other side, would send shivers down the spine of the boldest and the badest of enemies! They send in a drone we shoot it down, they send in Jets we take out the airfield where they take off from, they stike us with missiles, we take out their bases within our range and so on........

Unfortunately, none of this is true vis-a-vis USA. I do not blame Pakistan. Even nations like India and China can do little against US hegemony.

Your statements are lighter because you haven't yet lifted the pieces of a beloved one murdered in a drone strike, however the murder of my fellow countrymen is bearing down on my conscience and this is the only way I can fight this war, for the time being!

I feel the same pain that you do. Time and observations can change any individual. Their used to be a time when I regarded USA as a role model state for the world and champion of human rights. Believe me! Such illusions no longer exist in my mind. And neither I am living with illusion of invincibility of Pakistan.

I always try to give a dose of ground realities to my fellows because I want them to work harder for the betterment of this nation. I myself am working hard and in the field of research.

Yet another assumption to which I won't even bother posting a reply.

We are talking about USA. Not India.

Such overconfidence in the achievements and abilities of the enemy and such pessimism in our own ability is disheartening. A Nuclear Pakistan is unacceptable to the whole world especially USA & Israel. If such a task was possible, it would have been achieved a long time back.

I am very confident in capabilities of Pakistan when it comes to India. However, will this perception hold true against all kinds of external threats in this world? Think again.

Pakistan is not a super power, brother. Wake up!

It should be noticed that even gap with India is widening with passage of time. Only our nuclear capability ensures our security vis-a-vis India. Though I am not implying that other departments of defence are useless. They are better prepared now, which is positive thing.

And when Pakistan is so vulnerable in comparison to USA, I shudder to think about the vulnerability of other Islamic nations.

 

[niaz]

Because USSR was defeated in Afghanistan by the Mujahedeen. Many Pakistanis think that Pakistan and Zia ul Haq did it. Reality was that US funding and weapons, volunteers from nearly all the Muslim countries including Pakistan and the ISI were together responsible. If a single entity has to take credit, it is the Mujahedeen who suffered all the casualties, but certainly not Zia ul Haq or Pakistan on her own.

Most importantly, US was firmly behind the mujahedeen therefore USSR could not use nukes in Afghanistan. This was Vietnam in reverse, where even though some US politicians such as Barry Goldwater advocated the use of nuclear weapons, only conventional weapons were used and US lost the war.

Military confrontation aside, all US has to do is to withdraw support for IMF funding and Pakistan economy will suffer. US have now managed to eliminate Iranian banks from the ‘Swift’ system. Were this to happen to Pakistan, all our import /exports will have a hard time because of the payment difficulties? Iran has huge reserves of oil and gas, Pakistan does not. Therefore in my opinion, even thinking of a military confrontation with a Super Power tantamount to suicide.

I don’t mean that we should cow down and accept everything that US says. One has to balance between Yes, No & May be. Consider all possible consequences with a cool head and then act in the best possible interest of Pakistan and her people.

International politics and foreign policy can at time be like walking on a tight rope. We may not like the situation but we have to find ways and means to live with it.

To illustrate a possible scenario:

Pakistan Gov’t has declared time and again that they are against use of Pakistani territory for attack against a neighbouring country. However it is no secret that Taliban from Haqqani network carry out attacks in Afghanistan and then come back and hide in Pakistan.

Because we distinguish between good Taliban and bad Taliban and we take no action. At the same time Haqqani group has complete control over North Waziristan where Pak Army dare not go and GOP writ doesn’t apply and we have not acted to restore the territory to Pakistan’s control for whatever reason.

What happens if US insists on continuing drone attacks despite Pakistan’s’ protestations?

I would support Pakistan raising this question in the Security Council, failing that in the UN General assembly. Additionally try to get diplomatic support from the OIC and other friendly countries.

One honourable members of this forum has accused me of being in the awe of the US. If worrying about what could to happen to Pakistan in case of a confrontation with US is being in awe, I accept that I am in awe. But at the end of the day, I would not risk to have Pakistan destroyed to save Haqqani Taliban.

 

[Mav3rick]

No, my post is not full of assumptions. Most of my points are based on concrete facts. Difference is that my grasp of ground realities is much greater then yours.

US military might is shaped for power projection in any corner of the world and US defensive capabilities have been designed on the basis of threat perceptions that far exceed our own. US DOD budget alone should give any educated person a clue in this regard. There is simply no comparison with Pakistan in these aspects.


Brother, seriously? Do you think that Afghanistan had much infrastructure to loose this time after decades of war?


Keeping in mind the firepower that US possesses, such statements should be taken seriously. The objective of US in Iraq was not to flatten the entire country. However, Iraqi military infrastructure was damaged to such an extent that Iraqi forces were using 'letters via hand delivery' for communication purposes during the final days. And Iraqi industrial capability also had been destroyed.

Iraq is currently relying on its oil exports for survival – a luxury that Pakistan does not have.


Musharraf did his homework too. And he made his decision on the basis of his homework.


Read this:

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, was an uneventful day in Pakistan, at least while the sun was high. That evening I was in Karachi, inspecting work at the beautiful gardens of the mausoleum of our founder Quaide-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I was happy to be in the city I love.

Little did I know that we were about to be thrust into the front line of yet another war, a war against shadows.

My military secretary came up to me and whispered: an aircraft had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City. At first, I dismissed the news report as an accident involving what I thought must have been a light private aircraft. But at the back of my mind there was the nagging thought that this had to be a most peculiar accident. Either the pilot had to be utterly inept to have hit such a tall building, or the plane had to be so totally out of control that it couldn’t be prevented from hitting the tower.

When I returned home, I went directly into a meeting with Karachi’s corps commander. We were deep in discussion when my military secretary slipped into the room and started fiddling with the television set.

I could not believe what I saw. Smoke was billowing out of both towers of the World Trade Centre. People were jumping out of windows. There was sheer panic, utter chaos. Two fuel-laden Boeings full of passengers had been hijacked and deliberately crashed into the twin towers. This could hardly be an accident — it had to be a deliberate, brazen act of terrorism. Two other aircraft had also been hijacked — one had hit the Pentagon; another had gone down in a field in Pennsylvania. Commentators at the time said that second one had been heading for the White House. This was war.

The enormity of the event was palpable. The world’s most powerful country had been attacked on its own soil, with its own aircraft used as missiles. This was a great tragedy, and a great blow to the ego of the superpower. America was sure to react violently, like a wounded bear. If the perpetrator turned out to be al-Qaeda, then that wounded bear would come charging straight toward us.

Al-Qaeda was based in neighbouring Afghanistan under the protection of those international pariahs, the Taleban. Not only that: we were the only country maintaining diplomatic relations with the Taleban and their leader, Mullah Omar. September 11 marked an irrevocable turn from the past into an unknown future. The world would never be the same.

I went to the Governor House. The foreign office advised me to give a statement. I wrote one quickly and said on national television that we condemned this vile act, that we were against all forms of terrorism and stood with America at this appalling time. The next morning I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor’s House when my military secretary told me that the US secretary of state, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting. Powell was quite candid: "You are either with us or against us."

I took this as a blatant ultimatum. However, contrary to some reports, that conversation did not get into specifics. I told him that we were with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country against it.

When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage. In what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director-general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard.

I made a dispassionate, military-style analysis of our options, weighing the pros and cons.

My decision was based on the wellbeing of my people and the best interests of my country — Pakistan always comes first. I war-gamed the United States as an adversary. There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn’t support the United States. Thus the question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no, we could not, on three counts.

First was our military weakness as compared with the strength of the United States. Second was our economic weakness. We had no oil, and we did not have the capacity to sustain our economy in the face of an attack. Third, and worst of all, was our social weakness. We lack the homogeneity to galvanise the entire nation into an active confrontation. We could not endure a military confrontation with the United States from any point of view. The ultimate question that confronted me was whether it was in our national interest to destroy ourselves for the Taleban. Were they worth committing suicide over? The answer was a resounding no.

It has famously been said that “short-term gain for long-term pain” is foolhardy, but this is exactly what happened to the allies in the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, not least the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Source: In the Line of Fire (from Pervaiz Musharraf)

Should I have to explain more now?


Keep on day dreaming. US was heavily motivated to hit back hard after 9/11 event. Pakistan was the first nation that US threatened in such a blatant manner.

2001 was an ideal time to attack Pakistan. This nation was weak both militarily and economically. Nuclear capability was inadequate. And India was in the mood to hurt Pakistan along with USA.

Thanks to wise decision by Musharraf, he saved this nation from devastating consequences. And some people still question Musharraf's decision to join WOT and label him a coward! Bunch of ignorant fools.

Fact is that Pak-US alliance in WOT is not based on mutual respect since the beginning. Pakistan has been coerced to join this war.


ICBM missile goes in to space during its flight path. Russia and China cannot impose restrictions in flights in space.

Another thing is that US have other means to strike Pakistan from massive distances; SLBM and long range Bombers. Do the math now.

An example of US SLBM:

No. See above.


This means attacking other Islamic nations. Not a good option.


I am talking about a hypothetical scenario but it is very realistic and not based on assumptions.


See above. Your argument has been defeated.


This is also not an assumption. USA has deployed several layers of maritime surveillance technologies in Pacific and Atlantic oceans to monitor all kinds of naval vessels and natural phenomenon.

Qing class submarines have been designed to unleash cruise missiles. What this means is that these submarines will have to get very close to continental US to strike. This is extremely risky maneuver and the submarines will end up getting detected and destroyed on short notice.

By the way, Pakistan does not even have cruise missiles for these kinds of roles.


Indeed. Nuclear strikes in Pakistan will also leave devastating effects on neighboring countries.

Just a single powerful US nuclear bomb can do this:

For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.


This entirely depends upon the circumstances. If USA will be threatened with nuclear weapons, the latter will get legitimacy to do the same. And the world can do nothing except diplomatically attempt to convince both sides to give up.



For (a); we do not have an ICBM. This is confirmed thing. If China have parked a few ICBM here then where is the evidence? And you think that world will never come to know about this kind of development?

For (b); we do not know that how much USA knows about Pakistani strategic assets. However, in case of major hostilities (God forbid), do expect some surprises. USA is continuously monitoring important developments in Pakistan since 2001. Even US satellites are being used for these purposes.


Russia have most advanced nuclear capability after USA in the whole world and size of its arsenal is such that it guarantees MAD with USA. The case of Pakistan is entirely different; we are relatively an infant in comparison.

And you talk about deterrence? How have US managed to violate our sovereignty so many times during WOT regardless of our nuclear capability? Now you will say that our leaders do not have spine. This is not the whole truth. Our leaders know their limits.

Pakistani nuclear deterrence works against India because we ensure MAD with this nation. However, against USA, the ballgame is entirely different.


US ABM capabilities have made significant progress from PAC.

Here is very useful link which will keep you updated: The Ballistic Missile Defense System

The systems like Aegis, THAAD, and GMD are much more advanced then PAC (NOTE: PAC is a low-tier missile defense system).

Also, PAC system has matured by now. Failures of PAC 1 do not apply to PAC 3. Even PAC 2 system has record of intercepting Ballistic Missiles.

The entire system may not be foolproof but it guarantees absolute protection from nuclear assaults of limited proportions. And Pakistan is not even close to develop capabilities that can push these systems to limits.


We do have an ICBM program but developments are either extremely slow or halted due to financial constraints. ICBM system is very complex and expensive to develop and maintain in comparison to our existing missile systems. In addition, our threat perception is mainly limited to India with whom we have ensured MAD by now. ICBM will invite unwanted international attention in the current uncertain times. North Korea and Iran are valid analogies for Pakistan. The last thing we need to do is give US more excuse to include Pakistan in its threat perceptions.

Even if we have something, it is in early prototype stage. My belief is that we have a working prototype of a ballistic missile with 3000-4000km range currently, at maximum.


Pakistani nuclear related developments were well known in US prior to the tests. Fact is that neither Pakistan and nor US disclosed much information on these matters due to COLD WAR based factor. Pakistan was a valuable asset for US in its crusade against USSR. Secrecy of sensitive programs had to be respected. However, with empowerment of media sources worldwide, it has become more difficult to ensure secrecy now.


US have developed Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) systems which can give it vital clues about location of underground facilities.

And then US also have these kinds of nuclear weapons:

US can send these bombs right in to entrance points of underground facilities, which will do the trick.


American society is mentally prepared for this kind of eventuality. All US administrations indoctrinate US populace for this type of threat.


I am not saying that US is invincible. Never.

However, fact is that US is significantly more powerful then Pakistan and it can hurt Pakistan in such ways that it is difficult for us to imagine. Pakistan's offensive capabilities are shaped according to 'minimum possible deterrence' based doctrine. This is due to our very limited resources. In comparison, US have far greater economy, R&D infrastructure, and military capability. There is simply no comparison.

What US have demonstrated in WOT is peanuts in comparison to what it can really do to its opponents.


I am patriotic too. However, I am not blind to ground realities around me.


Unfortunately, none of this is true vis-à-vis USA. I do not blame Pakistan. Even nations like India and China can do little in case of US hegemony.


I feel the same pain that you do. Time and observations can change any individual. Their used to be a time when I considered USA as an angel and champion of human rights. Believe me! Such illusions no longer exist in my mind. And neither I am living with illusion of invincibility of Pakistan.

I always try to give a dose of ground realities to my fellows because I want them to work harder for the betterment of this nation. I myself am working hard and in the field of research.


We are talking about USA. Not India.


I am very confident in capabilities of Pakistan when it comes to India. However, will this perception hold true against all kinds of external threats in this world? Think again.

Pakistan is not a super power, brother. Wake up!

It should be noticed that even gap with India is widening with passage of time. Only our nuclear capability ensures our security vis-a-vis India now.

And when Pakistan is so vulnerable in comparison to USA, I shudder to think about the vulnerability of other Islamic nations.

A very very long post where each argument is irrelevant when separated. View my entire post as a single context even though comments were given in point to point manner. You are too awe struck by the US. You are basing all your points on the assumption that the US would seek a full scale war with Pakistan whereas I am basing my points on the assumption that if we hold our ground the US would tackle us in a different manner, perhaps even one that may be beneficial for us.

Let me conclude: With your argument, we shall all die miserably & in shame, one by one. With my argument, we shall either die or live....but in dignity.

I have seen the guts of this great US empire when openly challenged by Iran & North Korea. I have witnessed the world's super power lose in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I have firm belief of the outcome of this crusade against Islam and I have a firm belief in the signs of emergence of Imam Mahdi and Day of Judgement. You want to save your hide because it is yet protected, I want to sacrifice mine for the possibility of saving others.

Because USSR was defeated in Afghanistan by the Mujahedeen. Many Pakistanis think that Pakistan and Zia ul Haq did it. Reality was that US funding and weapons, volunteers from nearly all the Muslim countries including Pakistan and the ISI were together responsible. If a single entity has to take credit, it is the Mujahedeen who suffered all the casualties, but certainly not Zia ul Haq or Pakistan on her own.

Most importantly, US was firmly behind the mujahedeen therefore USSR could not use nukes in Afghanistan. This was Vietnam in reverse, where even though some US politicians such as Barry Goldwater advocated the use of nuclear weapons, only conventional weapons were used and US lost the war.

Military confrontation aside, all US has to do is to withdraw support for IMF funding and Pakistan economy will suffer. US have now managed to eliminate Iranian banks from the ‘Swift’ system. Were this to happen to Pakistan, all our import /exports will have a hard time because of the payment difficulties? Iran has huge reserves of oil and gas, Pakistan does not. Therefore in my opinion, even thinking of a military confrontation with a Super Power tantamount to suicide.

I don’t mean that we should cow down and accept everything that US says. One has to balance between Yes, No & May be. Consider all possible consequences with a cool head and then act in the best possible interest of Pakistan and her people.

International politics and foreign policy can at time be like walking on a tight rope. We may not like the situation but we have to find ways and means to live with it.

To illustrate a possible scenario:

Pakistan Gov’t has declared time and again that they are against use of Pakistani territory for attack against a neighbouring country. However it is no secret that Taliban from Haqqani network carry out attacks in Afghanistan and then come back and hide in Pakistan.

Because we distinguish between good Taliban and bad Taliban and we take no action. At the same time Haqqani group has complete control over North Waziristan where Pak Army dare not go and GOP writ doesn’t apply and we have not acted to restore the territory to Pakistan’s control for whatever reason.

What happens if US insists on continuing drone attacks despite Pakistan’s’ protestations?

I would support Pakistan raising this question in the Security Council, failing that in the UN General assembly. Additionally try to get diplomatic support from the OIC and other friendly countries.

One honourable members of this forum has accused me of being in the awe of the US. If worrying about what could to happen to Pakistan in case of a confrontation with US is being in awe, I accept that I am in awe. But at the end of the day, I would not risk to have Pakistan destroyed to save Haqqani Taliban.

The bold part is where you lost my respect because of your illogical statement. To even expect the UNSC or any other body of the world, persuade the US to stop these drone attacks is like India giving us the rest of Kashmir and her part of Punjab as a goodwill gesture to make up for the atrocities they committed in Kashmir for all these years.

 

[LeGenD]

A very very long post where each argument is irrelevant when separated.

I find it surprising that you regard my response as irrelevant.

Let us go back to the point of origin of debate between you and me. Member niaz pointed out the folly of advocating war with USA by Zaid Hamid and others who share his views. You jumped in by reminding him about our nuclear capability. This is where I decided to correct you.

You still fail to realize the overwhelming superiority of USA over Pakistan in both conventional and nuclear power projection aspects. Point is that it is stupid to even think about advocating war with USA in the light of our existing capabilities, even if the latter has track record of voilating our sovereignty. Yes, we can choose to confront USA but diplomatic channels are preferable.

Do you think that Pakistan is the only victim of US hegemony? Several other countries are in the same pipe.

Best path would be to pursue more nuetral foreign policy, destroy local militancy, and also pursue strong economic plan to end dependency on US aid for economic and military purposes. These developments will make our situation better.

View my entire post as a single context even though comments were given in point to point manner. You are too awe struck by the US.

I do read your posts properly. Point is that you are also advocating confrontationist approach with USA. My argument is that we lack adequate strength to pursue such an approach. And it is always wise to do homework on capabilities of potential enemies. USA is far stronger and dangerous then India. This you need to realize.

You are basing all your points on the assumption that the US would seek a full scale war with Pakistan whereas I am basing my points on the assumption that if we hold our ground the US would tackle us in a different manner, perhaps even one that may be beneficial for us.

If you will bring nuclear factor in the equation, what will you expect from USA and that too in the light of currently fractured relationship? Do you see Kayani threatening USA with nuclear weapons?

We can certainly say 'no' to USA in certain matters pertaining to our interests. However, we are not in the position to pursue confrontationist approach with USA in militarlistic sense.

Let me conclude: With your argument, we shall all die miserably & in shame, one by one. With my argument, we shall either die or live....but in dignity.

Let me give you a better conclusion: Pakistan is a NATION born after hectic efforts of beloved Quaid and huge number of sacrifices of innocent people during partition period. We cannot jeopardize the fate of this NATION for the sake of foolishness of some people.

If Pakistani want to live with dignity then they need to correct their mistakes and shortcomings and make this nation much stronger then it currently is.

Ideals like yours do not apply in the same manner to 'an entire nation' as they may do to an individual. Try to think from the perspective of a leader. You cannot easily decide the fate of the entire nation on the basis of your personal beliefs, when you are a leader. You have to look at the big picture. Allah Almighty have not adviced muslims to commit suicide by own choice.

I have seen the guts of this great US empire when openly challenged by Iran & North Korea.

Iran is in very vulnerable position in current times. Saddam is gone and Libya is secured. These developments have paved the way for USA to act against Iran at any given moment.

Also, Iran have oil just like Iraq for worst case scenario.

And North Korea is a bad example as well. Common people of North Korea are impoverished due to idiotic policies of their leader. North Korea is surviving under Chinese umbrella. However, geopolitics of Pakistan is different from that of North Korea. China cannot offer similar clout to Pakistan due to risk of increased confrontation with both India and USA.

I have witnessed the world's super power lose in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Vietnam is old story. It cannot be repeated. And Afghanistan is a war-torn nation with no future in sight.

You want Pakistan to meet similar fate? It can be much worse for Pakistan relatively.

And these are conventional confrontations. US can project much more power then it did in these nations. Pakistan is a strong nation, therefore, US response would be tough accordingly in case of hostilities (God forbid).

I have firm belief of the outcome of this crusade against Islam and I have a firm belief in the signs of emergence of Imam Mahdi and Day of Judgement. You want to save your hide because it is yet protected, I want to sacrifice mine for the possibility of saving others.

I respect your belief. However, you should awaken to ground realities of existing Islamic world around you.

Islamic world is badly divided and filled with internal rivalries. USA have attacked and destroyed 3 Islamic nations by now; Afghanistan; Iraq; and Libya. And other Islamic nations were silent spectators.

 

[500]

Total Navy Ship Strength by Country

Total Submarine Strength by Country

I LOLed.

 

[RayKalm]

I LOLed.

Why so...?

 

[King Solomon]

Why so...?

IMO, pakistan has a less amount of coastline to defend compared to iran or turkey. So, it is natural its navy will be smaller in size.

 

[POST_HUMAN_WAR]

Why so...?

He properly LOLed because the ranking is very unaccurate, global firepower only takes numbers into account not quality for example north korea has lot of subs and ships but almost all of them are outdated.

As for your first question unlike Pakistan Turkey and Iran are surrounded by water so they need a stonger navy to protect their coastline

^^^^Turkey

^^^^Iran

^^^Pakistan

 

[The SC]

No, my post is not full of assumptions. Most of my points are based on concrete facts. Difference is that my grasp of ground realities is much greater then yours. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this post is only to educate you.

US military might is shaped for power projection in any corner of the world and US defensive capabilities have been designed on the basis of threat perceptions that far exceed our own. US defence budget alone should give any educated person a clue in this regard. There is simply no comparison with Pakistan in these aspects.


Brother, seriously? Do you think that Afghanistan had much infrastructure to loose this time after decades of war?


Keeping in mind the firepower that US possesses, such statements should be taken seriously. The objective of US in Iraq was not to flatten the entire country. However, Iraqi military infrastructure was damaged to such an extent that Iraqi forces were using 'letters via hand delivery method' for communication purposes during the final days. And Iraqi industrial capability also have been destroyed.

Iraq is currently relying on its oil exports for revenue generation – a luxury that Pakistan does not have.


Musharraf did his homework too. And he made his decision on the basis of his homework.


Read this:

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, was an uneventful day in Pakistan, at least while the sun was high. That evening I was in Karachi, inspecting work at the beautiful gardens of the mausoleum of our founder Quaide-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I was happy to be in the city I love.

Little did I know that we were about to be thrust into the front line of yet another war, a war against shadows.

My military secretary came up to me and whispered: an aircraft had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City. At first, I dismissed the news report as an accident involving what I thought must have been a light private aircraft. But at the back of my mind there was the nagging thought that this had to be a most peculiar accident. Either the pilot had to be utterly inept to have hit such a tall building, or the plane had to be so totally out of control that it couldn’t be prevented from hitting the tower.

When I returned home, I went directly into a meeting with Karachi’s corps commander. We were deep in discussion when my military secretary slipped into the room and started fiddling with the television set.

I could not believe what I saw. Smoke was billowing out of both towers of the World Trade Centre. People were jumping out of windows. There was sheer panic, utter chaos. Two fuel-laden Boeings full of passengers had been hijacked and deliberately crashed into the twin towers. This could hardly be an accident — it had to be a deliberate, brazen act of terrorism. Two other aircraft had also been hijacked — one had hit the Pentagon; another had gone down in a field in Pennsylvania. Commentators at the time said that second one had been heading for the White House. This was war.

The enormity of the event was palpable. The world’s most powerful country had been attacked on its own soil, with its own aircraft used as missiles. This was a great tragedy, and a great blow to the ego of the superpower. America was sure to react violently, like a wounded bear. If the perpetrator turned out to be al-Qaeda, then that wounded bear would come charging straight toward us.

Al-Qaeda was based in neighbouring Afghanistan under the protection of those international pariahs, the Taleban. Not only that: we were the only country maintaining diplomatic relations with the Taleban and their leader, Mullah Omar. September 11 marked an irrevocable turn from the past into an unknown future. The world would never be the same.

I went to the Governor House. The foreign office advised me to give a statement. I wrote one quickly and said on national television that we condemned this vile act, that we were against all forms of terrorism and stood with America at this appalling time. The next morning I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor’s House when my military secretary told me that the US secretary of state, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting. Powell was quite candid: "You are either with us or against us."

I took this as a blatant ultimatum. However, contrary to some reports, that conversation did not get into specifics. I told him that we were with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country against it.

When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage. In what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director-general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard.

I made a dispassionate, military-style analysis of our options, weighing the pros and cons.

My decision was based on the wellbeing of my people and the best interests of my country — Pakistan always comes first. I war-gamed the United States as an adversary. There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn’t support the United States. Thus the question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no, we could not, on three counts.

First was our military weakness as compared with the strength of the United States. Second was our economic weakness. We had no oil, and we did not have the capacity to sustain our economy in the face of an attack. Third, and worst of all, was our social weakness. We lack the homogeneity to galvanise the entire nation into an active confrontation. We could not endure a military confrontation with the United States from any point of view. The ultimate question that confronted me was whether it was in our national interest to destroy ourselves for the Taleban. Were they worth committing suicide over? The answer was a resounding no.

It has famously been said that “short-term gain for long-term pain” is foolhardy, but this is exactly what happened to the allies in the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, not least the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Source: In the Line of Fire (from Pervaiz Musharraf)


Keep on day dreaming. US was heavily motivated to hit back hard after 9/11 event. Pakistan was the first nation that US threatened in such a blatant manner.

2001 was an ideal time to attack Pakistan. This nation was weak both militarily and economically. Nuclear capability was inadequate due to amateur and vulnerable delivery options. And India was in the mood to hurt Pakistan along with USA.

Thanks to wise decision by Musharraf, he saved this nation from devastating consequences. And some people still question Musharraf's decision to join WOT and label him a coward! Bunch of ignorant fools.

Fact is that Pak-US alliance in WOT is not based on mutual respect since the beginning. Pakistan has been coerced to join this war.


An ICBM missile goes in to space during its flight path. Russia and China cannot impose restrictions on flights in space.

Another thing is that US have other means to strike Pakistan from massive distances; SLBM and long range Bombers. Do the math now.

An example of US SLBM:

No. See above.


This means attacking other Islamic nations. Not a good option.


I am talking about a 'hypothetical scenario' but it is very realistic and not based on assumptions.


See above. Your argument has been defeated.


This is also not an assumption. USA has deployed several layers of maritime surveillance technologies in Pacific and Atlantic oceans to monitor all kinds of naval vessels and natural phenomenon.

Qing class submarines have been designed to fire cruise missiles. What this means is that these submarines will have to get very close to continental US to strike. This is extremely risky maneuver and the submarines will end up getting detected and destroyed on short notice.

By the way, Pakistan does not even have cruise missiles for these kinds of roles.


Indeed. Nuclear strikes in Pakistan will also leave devastating effects on neighboring countries.

Just a single powerful US nuclear bomb can do this:

For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.


This entirely depends upon the circumstances. If USA will be threatened with nuclear weapons, the latter will get legitimacy to do the same. And the world can do nothing except diplomatically attempt to convince both sides to give up.



For (a); we do not have an ICBM. This is confirmed thing. If China have parked a few ICBM here then where is the evidence? And you think that world will never come to know about this kind of development?

For (b); we do not know that how much USA knows about Pakistani strategic assets. However, in case of major hostilities (God forbid), do expect some surprises. USA is continuously monitoring important developments in Pakistan since 2001. Even US satellites are being used for these purposes.


Russia have most advanced nuclear capability after USA in the whole world and size of its arsenal is such that it guarantees MAD with USA. The case of Pakistan is entirely different; we are relatively an infant in comparison.

And you talk about deterrence? How have US managed to violate our sovereignty so many times during WOT regardless of our nuclear capability? Now you will say that our leaders do not have spine. This is not the whole truth. Our leaders know their limits.

Pakistani nuclear deterrence works against India because we ensure MAD with this nation. However, against USA, the ballgame is entirely different.


The ABM capabilities of USA have made significant progress from PAC.

Here is very useful link which will keep you updated: The Ballistic Missile Defense System

The systems like Aegis, THAAD, and GMD are much more advanced then PAC (NOTE: PAC is a low-tier missile defense system).

Also, PAC system has matured by now. Failures of PAC 1 do not apply to PAC 3. Even PAC 2 system has record of intercepting Ballistic Missiles.

The entire system may not be foolproof but it guarantees absolute protection from nuclear assaults of limited proportions. And Pakistan is not even close to develop capabilities that can push these systems to limits.


We do have an ICBM program but developments are either extremely slow or halted due to financial constraints. ICBM system is very complex and expensive to develop and maintain in comparison to our existing missile systems. In addition, our threat perception is mainly limited to India with whom we have ensured MAD by now. ICBM will invite unwanted international attention in these uncertain times. North Korea and Iran are valid analogies for Pakistan in this aspect. The last thing we need to do is to give US more excuse to include Pakistan in its threat perceptions.

Even if we have something, it is in early prototype stage. My belief is that we have a working prototype of a ballistic missile with 3000-4000km range currently, at maximum.


Pakistani nuclear related developments were well known in US prior to the tests. Fact is that neither Pakistan and nor US disclosed much information on these matters due to COLD WAR based factor. Pakistan was a valuable asset for US in its crusade against USSR. Secrecy of sensitive programs had to be respected. However, with empowerment of media sources worldwide, it has become more difficult to ensure secrecy for prolonged periods.


USA possesses Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) systems which can give it vital clues about location of underground facilities.

And then USA also have these kinds of nuclear weapons:

US can send these bombs right in to entrance points of underground facilities, which will do the trick.


American society is mentally prepared for this kind of eventuality. All US administrations indoctrinate US populace for this type of threat.


I am not saying that US is invincible. Never.

However, fact is that US is significantly more powerful then Pakistan and it can hurt Pakistan in such ways that it is difficult for us to imagine. Pakistan's offensive capabilities are shaped according to 'minimum possible deterrence' based doctrine. This is due to our very limited resources. In comparison, US have far greater economy, R&D infrastructure, and military capability. There is simply no comparison.

What US have demonstrated in WOT is peanuts in comparison to what it can really do to its opponents.


I am patriotic too. However, I am not blind to ground realities around me.


Unfortunately, none of this is true vis-a-vis USA. I do not blame Pakistan. Even nations like India and China can do little against US hegemony.


I feel the same pain that you do. Time and observations can change any individual. Their used to be a time when I regarded USA as a role model state for the world and champion of human rights. Believe me! Such illusions no longer exist in my mind. And neither I am living with illusion of invincibility of Pakistan.

I always try to give a dose of ground realities to my fellows because I want them to work harder for the betterment of this nation. I myself am working hard and in the field of research.


We are talking about USA. Not India.


I am very confident in capabilities of Pakistan when it comes to India. However, will this perception hold true against all kinds of external threats in this world? Think again.

Pakistan is not a super power, brother. Wake up!

It should be noticed that even gap with India is widening with passage of time. Only our nuclear capability ensures our security vis-a-vis India. Though I am not implying that other departments of defence are useless. They are better prepared now, which is positive thing.

And when Pakistan is so vulnerable in comparison to USA, I shudder to think about the vulnerability of other Islamic nations.

Realistic and to the point to a certain extent.
There is the law and principle of uncertainty that applies to all theories and all systems including armaments of the US and its capacities.
For Pakistan alone, I agree with you for 90% of it, but, since every country has its own military secrets, we can only speculate on What Pakistan can do and can not do..
The main thing is that Pakistan is A Muslim country, and taking on the only Muslim nuclear power will be perceived as a vital danger to the whole islamic world, so between you and me can the US take on the whole Islamic world without going to a world war, which in turn will jeopardise the interests of many other powerful nations who will do anything to stop even the idea of the US attacking Pakistan, a major power in the subcontinent and a piece of the islamic body or mosaic if you prefer.

 

[Developereo]

If the PN's only objective is to dissuade coastal blockade by IN CBGs stationed 300 miles offshore, can that objective not be achieved by investing in scores of hypersonic BrahMos type missile batteries located along the coast?

 

[genmirajborgza786]

He properly LOLed because the ranking is very unaccurate, global firepower only takes numbers into account not quality for example north korea has lot of subs and ships but almost all of them are outdated.

As for your first question unlike Pakistan Turkey and Iran are surrounded by water so they need a stonger navy to protect their coastline

^^^^Turkey

^^^^Iran

^^^Pakistan

i disagree the Netherlands has a coastlines of about 451 km where as Pakistan has a coastline of 1050 km yet the Netherlands has a green water navy its not about the size of the coastlines its all about the will to have a strong navy south Korea does not have a very large coastline yet it has a green water navy capable of power projection so point is if one is serious enough then even a 200 km coastline is sufficient enough to have a strong navy, Pakistan has a 1050 km coastlines is like driving straight from Karachi to Islamabad thats a lot so size is not the problem but the lack of motivation is, there no excuse for PN to not expand its navy, other then the lack of seriousness or will to do so, i believe Pakistan has enough of coastline in area to have a green water navy it only needs the resolute to strengthened & expand the navy

 

[notorious_eagle]

If the PN's only objective is to dissuade coastal blockade by IN CBGs stationed 300 miles offshore, can that objective not be achieved by investing in scores of hypersonic BrahMos type missile batteries located along the coast?

There are already many ASM batteries located along the coast. Installing Brahmos type of missile batteries is not going to provide much advantage due to the missile's high RCS, a warship has a multiple layer of defence which can easily shoot down a hypersonic missile. Small, manoeuvrable and stealthy ASM missiles are the way to go.

 

[POST_HUMAN_WAR]

i disagree the Netherlands has a coastlines of about 451 km where as Pakistan has a coastline of 1050 km yet the Netherlands has a green water navy its not about the size of the coastlines its all about the will to have a strong navy south Korea does not have a very large coastline yet it has a green water navy capable of power projection so point is if one is serious enough then even a 200 km coastline is sufficient enough to have a strong navy, Pakistan has a 1050 km coastlines is like driving straight from Karachi to Islamabad thats a lot so size is not the problem but the lack of motivation is, there no excuse for PN to not expand its navy, other then the lack of seriousness or will to do so, i believe Pakistan has enough of coastline in area to have a green water navy it only needs the resolute to strengthened & expand the navy

Dear genmirajborgza786 unlike Pakistan Netherlands has few islands in the Caribbean so their navy
has a more important role in the armed forces also they don't have any hostile bourders so they don't need a strong army as much as they need a strong navy and south korea as i said before is surrounded by water as you can see below in picture

i do agree that the PN should expand but PA and PAF will/did play a bigger role in any war against our neighbours to the east as result most of our fund is and should be allocated to PA and PAF

 

[mosu]

i disagree the Netherlands has a coastlines of about 451 km where as Pakistan has a coastline of 1050 km yet the Netherlands has a green water navy its not about the size of the coastlines its all about the will to have a strong navy south Korea does not have a very large coastline yet it has a green water navy capable of power projection so point is if one is serious enough then even a 200 km coastline is sufficient enough to have a strong navy, Pakistan has a 1050 km coastlines is like driving straight from Karachi to Islamabad thats a lot so size is not the problem but the lack of motivation is, there no excuse for PN to not expand its navy, other then the lack of seriousness or will to do so, i believe Pakistan has enough of coastline in area to have a green water navy it only needs the resolute to strengthened & expand the navy

pakistan navy have to grow strong also pak navy cheif mentioned that pakistan navy is weak and decade back then the airforce and army of pakistan

 

[LeGenD]

Realistic and to the point to a certain extent.

Thanks.

There is the law and principle of uncertainty that applies to all theories and all systems including armaments of the US and its capacities.

Indeed. However, US weapon systems are typically high quality products.

For Pakistan alone, I agree with you for 90% of it, but, since every country has its own military secrets, we can only speculate on What Pakistan can do and can not do..

Pakistan has limited options in this case. Targeting US interests in the region would mean targeting other Islamic nations in the process. This is another handicap for us.

The main thing is that Pakistan is A Muslim country, and taking on the only Muslim nuclear power will be perceived as a vital danger to the whole islamic world, so between you and me can the US take on the whole Islamic world without going to a world war, which in turn will jeopardise the interests of many other powerful nations who will do anything to stop even the idea of the US attacking Pakistan, a major power in the subcontinent and a piece of the islamic body or mosaic if you prefer.

My friend, US would have calculated its options when it issued blatant warning to Pakistan after 9/11. And Islamic world is unfortunately in mess. We all have seen that how much help Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have recieved after being attacked. Sad indeed.

And it is difficult to predict the causes of another world war. It will not happen so easily because stakes are very high this time.