Why hasn't Pakistan been attacked by NATO yet?

As far as I heard, that was the suggestion.

Whether its true or not, I'm not sure, but like I said as I heard it seemed that Pakistan would stand and support Iran in the event of the US and Israel attacking Iran.

Since when were all wars based upon the possibility of success? Pakistan couldn't dream of defeating the West in its wildest dreams. However, a Nuclear Weapon at the heart of a Nation will cripple it. Pakistan knows it wont take them on, but then again, do you really think that'll factor in for them? As long as there's one nutcase General left, you can guarantee they'll attempt to try it.

I'd heard China and Pakistan were on some sort of footing. However, I didn't realise they'd actively stated they'd support them. Thanks for clarifying that.

there's no one who can doubt that Pakistan wouldn't want an opportunity to take a bash at Israel as much as the next extremist Islamic Nation. No?

You are a fool if you actually think that Pakistan would attack any nation in the defence of Iran.

Pakistan has an interest in averting a potential war with Iran, as it will have a negative impact on Pakistan's economy. Certainly the increase in bilateral trade between the two and the billion dollar gas pipeline deal would be jeaporidised by an attack. However, I doubt Pakistan will take any action greater than statements of condemnation when the war comes. This is the same government that is allowing their own country to be bombarded with drone strikes in return for US dollars. The current government and military of Pakistan will not take any military action against the US.

Like I said, just what I'd heard. And to be honest, a chance for any Muslim nation to have a scrap at Israel would surely lighten any deal. I can't think of a single Muslim Nation that doesn't want to slap Israel around the face. Can you?

Now granted, they may not openly support them, nor retaliate in direct conjunction via Iran's attack. But I would bet you any money that as soon as Israel steps up the war footing, Pakistan would be straight in there against them. Whilst perhaps not on the side of the Iranians, (for whatever reason, it was a passing comment I heard that Pakistan would support Iran), there's no one who can doubt that Pakistan wouldn't want an opportunity to take a bash at Israel as much as the next extremist Islamic Nation. No?

Have you seen how mad the Russians are about the proposed missile defence shield in Europe?

I really doubt the Americans would be public about the technology if they had it. Do you really think they haven't developed it after half a century of cold war with Soviets armed to the teeth with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles. It exists, they just won't talk about it.

It's a moot point, Pakistan knows it's dead meat if it defends Iran so it won't. Not sure if they would defend Iran anyway, Muslims are often enemies not friends.

I don't think it's because of the nukes they have on missiles. It's 2012, I'm sure the Americans have a secret way of neutralising them by now. I imagine it's more related to the possibility of nuclear material falling in the hands of terrorists sent to attack the west.

Also, why should we put our countries on the other end of the Pakistan gun barrel? We can just use India for that.

Also in the long-run it's going to increasingly be China's problem. China has a restive Muslim population boardering Pakistan. Why do the Chinese a favour? Some westerners die due to terrorism? Not that big a deal when crunching the numbers over all. Leave them as a festering sore to hurt the development of two future rivals. Pakistan is welcome to keep China and India down.

It's a serious question and something I've found baffling. For all the West's talk about "the war on terror" it's pretty obvious that there is a problem with Pakistani and terrorists yet NATO seem to just ignore them.

The terrorists who commited the Mumbai terror attacks were trained by the Pakistan ISI

The ISI supported and organised the bombing of an Indian Embassy in Kabul

"Charities" after the Pakistan floods were found to be sending money to Al Queda

Taliban fighters have recieved training in Pakistan and have been using Pakistani supplied weapons.

Bin Laden was captured less than a mile from the Pakistan equivalent of Sandhurst.


So, why do NATO waste time fannying around with countries such as Iraq and Syria (who they seem to be planning to attack next) when it's obvious Pakistan has their grubby little fingers involved directly with Al Queda.

They would not.

Any attack against Isreal would be an attack against the US.

You really are crazy if you think Pakistan would try to do anything like that vs the US.

America can't take on Nuclear ICBMs. The Boeing 747 with an inbuilt tactical laser destroyer is useless. It only works when the air is extremely clear, it wont work through clouds or dust and it only has a seventeen percent success rate against dummy ICBMs.

Russia coined the use of jet fighters to destroy ICBMs. There's a twnety second window on ICBM take off and a five second window on ICBM descent phase to destroy an in flight ICBM. The Flanker took part in over a dozen tests involving fifteen ICBMs and acquired a 95% success rate. America can't do that, however, as they don't outfit aircraft with "See it, kill it" visors.

Whereas Russian (and many European aircraft) have the ability to fire a missile at a target the visor picks up, the American aircraft are limited to having to point their own aircraft at the target. They also don't have weapons capable of performing such manouveres. The QAAM can track a target at over 50Gs as well as at Mach 6. The closest weapons America can put on the table are the Sparrow and Sidewinder; both only able to take 30Gs and travel much slower.

As long as the reticule on the pilot's helmet in Russian Aircraft is kept on target, a QAAM has a 99% kill rate. Its almost impossible to miss if you can see the target, and more importantly that works through many levels of atmospheric conditions and weather formations.

Whilst Russia is on the forefront of Anti-ICBM tech, America is trudging along behind. I use to think it was the Americans leading with tech like Star Streak, Peacemaker and Colossus systems, but these are simply ideas and not, as I thought, practical applications. Whereas Russia has practical applications in both airborne defenses and ground based defenses.

Nukes are still a threat to Russia, don't get me wrong, but America has no active means of taking them on effectively, unlike the Russians do. Thus, America still ****s the bed when it comes to the possibility of a Nuclear War.

Like I said, just what I'd heard. And to be honest, a chance for any Muslim nation to have a scrap at Israel would surely lighten any deal. I can't think of a single Muslim Nation that doesn't want to slap Israel around the face. Can you?

America can't take on Nuclear ICBMs. The Boeing 747 with an inbuilt tactical laser destroyer is useless. It only works when the air is extremely clear, it wont work through clouds or dust and it only has a seventeen percent success rate against dummy ICBMs.

Russia coined the use of jet fighters to destroy ICBMs. There's a twnety second window on ICBM take off and a five second window on ICBM descent phase to destroy an in flight ICBM. The Flanker took part in over a dozen tests involving fifteen ICBMs and acquired a 95% success rate. America can't do that, however, as they don't outfit aircraft with "See it, kill it" visors.

Whereas Russian (and many European aircraft) have the ability to fire a missile at a target the visor picks up, the American aircraft are limited to having to point their own aircraft at the target. They also don't have weapons capable of performing such manouveres. The QAAM can track a target at over 50Gs as well as at Mach 6. The closest weapons America can put on the table are the Sparrow and Sidewinder; both only able to take 30Gs and travel much slower.

As long as the reticule on the pilot's helmet in Russian Aircraft is kept on target, a QAAM has a 99% kill rate. Its almost impossible to miss if you can see the target, and more importantly that works through many levels of atmospheric conditions and weather formations.

Whilst Russia is on the forefront of Anti-ICBM tech, America is trudging along behind. I use to think it was the Americans leading with tech like Star Streak, Peacemaker and Colossus systems, but these are simply ideas and not, as I thought, practical applications. Whereas Russia has practical applications in both airborne defenses and ground based defenses.

Nukes are still a threat to Russia, don't get me wrong, but America has no active means of taking them on effectively, unlike the Russians do. Thus, America still ****s the bed when it comes to the possibility of a Nuclear War.

I'm afraid you missed the point in my posts here:

I'm not saying Pakistan will attack the US or Israel, quite rightly they aren't that idiotic.

However, if Israel and the US attack them, or if another nation took on Israel, they'd dive at the opportunity.

Of course, no nation in their right minds other then Russia or China (perhaps a combined EU force) would take on the US. But there isn't much of a choice when the US knocks on your front door with the 120mm of an Abrams.

Assuming all this is correct- strong knowledge

I'm surprised that Russia has capability the US doesn't. How do you know this? Why would the US release such information?

Assuming all this is correct- strong knowledge

I'm surprised that Russia has capability the US doesn't. How do you know this? Why would the US release such information?

Alas, Pakistan very much has the capability to attack Western Nations. It can attack the entirety of America from where it sits, as well as Europe. The Russian R7 and Topol out perform the West's typical payload of ICBMs such as the Minuteman and Peacekeeper.

America likes to think it has all the tech, but Russian kit almost always out performs American counterparts. This is true of aircraft, vehicles, firearms and is certainly true of ICBMs. The Topol is a monumental ICBM system; capable of immense destruction at superior ranges and is able to be carried on mobile platforms or stored in silos. However, at present I believe its only in mobile form, whilst though much more vulnerable, it also has the obvious advantage of being mobile.

India will soon overtake it with the Agni III; which is a modern reroll on an old Russian system, the SS-18 Satan or R-36. Though, being next door neighbours, increased range doesn't appeal to them, however the fact its a MIRV system does.

To the best of my knowledge and reading. I studied modern warfare (from the 20th Century onwards) for six years, as well as warfare from other eras too, but modern warfare has been a hobby to read up on. Nuclear warfare, ICBMs and subsequent defenses played a big role in that.

Its not that the Russian's have the capability either, more that they've actually tried more "down to earth" methods. Shooting down ICBMs worked well, whereas America was always thinking of the highest point first. Instead of working up to something, they dive for the most advanced point. 50s laser technology... It was a fantastic idea, but completely unrealistic.

America would never actively display that they'd taken ideas from the Russians. It appears Cold War, anti-Communism waves are still strong. For example, on aircraft, the Americans now use valves on many elements of their aircraft, whereas prior it was electronic systems. It was incredibly suseptible to EMP attacks whereas Russian valves were safe. It was the same with American ejector seats, they used circutry and in the case of electrical failure, the pilot couldn't eject... Things like that they reaped from Russian tech.

Russian ABM systems simply outperform American counterparts, though they still aren't super effective. Granted, the Flankers achieved that ratio of success, but that was in controlled circumstances with no enemy air power or enemy anti-air, they weren't under stress and they were dummy ICBMs. However, it works.

People are now buying more Russian kit then American kit. India, especially, was offered contracts with around seventy American weapon manufacturers. The Russians stepped in and out performed everything, so the Indians now use almost all Russian kit. This is repeated along many countries, so now the Americans simply can't say anymore that they run the military front.

Much of this, I didn't know, especially the highlighted. If that's credible, I stand corrected.

If the US rolled into Pakistan tomorrow, there is no way they'd simply surrender. If NATO invades Pakistan, they'd have little choice in whether or not to actually go to war.