Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Why hasn't Pakistan been attacked by NATO yet?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Much of this, I didn't know, especially the highlighted. If that's credible, I stand corrected.
    Here is an article citing the leaked documents in which current Pakistani Prime minister, Gilani says in reference to drone strikes: “I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it[.]

    I have also edited my initial post in response to other posts you have made in this thread.

    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    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.
    Absolutley, they would wreak havoc before they fell, potentially even resorting to their nuclear deterent.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why hasn't NATO invaded the moon yet?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    He is talking B/S.
    May I suggest you refute his claims directly rather than a crude attempt at defamation.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    India has an Anti BM system correct me if im wrong- which is jointly developed with the russians? for the purpose i presume of knocking pakistani missles out the sky. And doesnt the US have AEGIS mounted on ships which it can send pretty much anywhere?
    Correct, though I forget the name of it.

    The US does have the AEGIS, but its not very effective. Standard ship load comes in at six missiles per launcher system. They can't move as fast as half the active ICBM models and they have a one in twenty chance of misfiring upon launch and to add insult to injury, something like a one in thirty chance of actually successfully hitting a target. So whilst it provdes global ABM, its not effective.

    The whole issue of paksitan and nukes doesnt scan with me im afraid - they obviously want to the world to believe they have significant ability to deliver a nuke strike- whether thats fully believeable given the state of that country and its relative ineffectiveness as a military power throughout its histroy is anotehr question. Saddam was keen to give the impression ot the west that he may have weapons to look the tough guy becuase it served his purposes of keeping the iranians at bay. it turned out to be balls.
    Nor me, but Russian authorities let slip that a Russian Arms dealer had sold the Pakistanis five Russian TOPOR ICBMs as well as five Frog-7 Mobile Launchers. Its a good bet they have something, but five isn't enough. Though I agree that Pakistan has very little military strength. A conventional war would, in almost every scenario, be a breeze.

    And secondly - does anyone really beelive a nuclear armed power would ver use nukes - it effectivley marks the end of human civilisation as we know it if one country fires. A 50 year cold war between 2 nuke armed super powers wen the distance without a nuke being fired - with a lot of posturing and name calling - fizlzing out to the eventual collapse of the soviet economy and the end of communist rule - still they didnt fire one in anger.
    "He who comes to the end of his tether is at his most aggressive".

    Part of the Russian and American plans if the enemy did manage to occupy most of their country was to drop a series of nuclear weapons along the nations to destroy the oppressors. It was only after the Cold War they found out both had the same idea. In the event of a full occupation, a final order to destroy their own nations would be given. Silos in the US were set to target their own major cities and any large concentrations of enemy units. Russia was the same.

    My point is is that, in the case Pakistan is literally cornered, a Nuclear Launch is almost certain. Many experts agree that any Nation's last act would be to assure the destruction, or do any damage possible, to a Nation that attacked it. I don't know about you, but if the enemy were knocking on the door to my bunker, I'd make sure my final act was to send a nuclear weapon out of a silo and cause any damage I can.

    Assuning Pakistan use those five TOPORs, that's the immediate and complete destruction of five major American cities. For the loss of a Nation, you've crippled another. If anyone was going to pursue that action, I reckon Pakistan would.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I see it hasn't occurred to anyone that Pakistan is a Commonwealth member state.

    Also, Pakistan's population is almost 6 times greater than that of either Iraq or Afghanistan for example.

    "The war on terror" is a manipulative play on words. Do you HONESTLY, hand on heart, believe that there is such thing as a real threat to the US, UK, France, etc.? "What about that lone wolf, Frenchman from Algeria, who blasted kids to death?" Well, surprise surprise, France brought that upon itself by allying itself with those who blasted Palestinian kids to death.

    There is no such thing as terror. There is only war. Funnily enough, these isolated incidents of "terror" are just sprinkles of war, as opposed to real, full blown war, that other people live with. Wars started by "terror-fighters".

    When I am really old, maybe 80, I will pick up a history book, maybe a tablet history app or something, and find out the conspiracies of our time. I look forward to that day.
    And when the next Hitler comes to power in a nuclear armed nation will you still hold the same views?

    Our focus seems to have shifted from stopping nations from obtaining WMDs weapons to targeting all the madmen in the world, as long as the two never meet then we will be okay, but I do suspect we may regret choosing our current coure of action.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    May I suggest you refute his claims directly rather than a crude attempt at defamation.
    You may not
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    It seems so strange to consider another country to be above the US what with it's huge spending. It seems, as you said, the Americans had ideas that were too ambitious for their time and it all came to less than the pragmatic Russian philosophy. The fact that arms manufacturing is a key component of the US economy and they're struggling to shift technology must be worrying from a US and a global standpoint. Certainly all the posturing against Iran makes me think the arms industry simply needs a war, I hope the powers that be don't oblige.

    Also, it's stupid if the US rejects ideas simply because they originated from a 'communist' state.

    I can't really discuss it further as I simply don't have the knowledge but thanks for the reply.
    But it simply isn't true, the US have far more advanced weapons, their missiles have a longer range, are more accurate and far more readily deployable. The only thing that Russia has over the US in terms of ICBMs is their payload carrying ability.

    It is true that the US aren't very good at inventing things, but they are very good at acquiring technologies and developing them.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    Pakistan is currently developing the Taimur, but until that is complete they don't officially have any ICBM capability and they certainly don't have any naval launch capabilities of any significant range.

    The R7s are now defunct in Russia (well they still refit them for satellite launches), so if Pakistan have any castoffs lying around (which I doubt, because of their size) they're welcome to them, they are so big and cumbersome that the US would pick them off before they were ever prepared for launch, it takes the best part of 24 hours to ready them and their launch sites are massive. As far as I know Pakistan doesn't have any Topols, they certainly don't officially.

    This is why I say we might regret not acting now to neutralise Pakistan before they acquire ICBMs and a more extreme government.
    The Taimur is a dead end project. They are trying to retro fit a CX Engine system onto a carcass that's incapable of large megaton loads. They want to put a low signature engine with an effective fuel econonomy system onto a missile system that will be ineffective.

    The CX is a fantastic ICBM delivery engine. But, much like the economical versions of cars, the same principal works for ICBMs. Its lighter, less powerful and was designed to deliver cruise missiles to a target, not a thirty foot long ICBM with a nose-heavy design.

    An Indian recon aircraft took pictures during out door development and sent the pictures to America which Russia subsequently got hold of. They both claimed that Pakistan's system was ineffective. Whether this is just them putting on a brave face, I'm not sure, but I do know that the CX will not work with that sort of ICBM carcass.

    The R7s are now obsolete in Russian ICBM tech, you're absolutely right. However, despite their shortcomings, for two decades they were the ICBM that ruled over the American Minuteman and Peacemaker. Granted, the latter two were faster and easier to retro fit, but the R7 would destroy an area six times the size the largest Warhead on the American ICBMs could cause. Plus, they always had some prepared, so it negated the inefficiency of their fitting, but you're right in that they were the double decker busses of the ICBM family.

    Like I said in another post, the Russian Authorities let slip that an Arms Dealer had been caught selling TOPOR ready Frog-7 Launchers as well as the carcasses themselves. Whether or not these are fitted, no one knows, but there was recon footage to back up the Frog-7s, without the TOPORs, however.

    You're right, though. If Pakistan acquire up to date ICBMs (or at least make a decent model), we would have more reason to worry. The American 747 would'nt have a hope in hell of taking on a modern Russian ICBM, in fact supposedly in the early 2000s the Russians developed in flight air-to-air missiles for their ICBMs. So its a target of its target.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    But it simply isn't true, the US have far more advanced weapons, their missiles have a longer range, are more accurate and far more readily deployable. The only thing that Russia has over the US in terms of ICBMs is their payload carrying ability.

    It is true that the US aren't very good at inventing things, but they are very good at acquiring technologies and developing them.
    If you're talking about ICBMs, I'm afraid Russia takes the cake. If you're talking about actual missiles such as Sparrows, Sidewinders, etc, Russia CERTAINLY takes the cake.

    The US currently deploys the Minuteman III; in every sector except speed it is beaten by the Russian counterparts.

    Its guidance system is "better" then its predecessors, because its predecessors couldn't put it accurately within a one kilometer ring. The Russian TOPOR is accurate to within one hundred meters.

    Its nozzle induction system is far superior, but because its lighter it can't carryas much.

    Its also a MIRV model. The MIRV isn't the best way forward. You're lowering the yield in return for having more, now granted it increases the chances of a successful strike, but you have to negate five megatons for that. Or is it ten megatons? I forget.

    It was claimed to have chaff and flare pockets too, but these weren't added, much like back up computer systems to maintain accuracy or backup ejection to ensure that even a fault in the Phase One of an ICBM's launch doesn't have the ICBM twirl off above your own turf. That means that any fault during Phase One could potentially lead to an ICBM coming straight back towards the States... Why this was overlooked is BEYOND me.

    They have outstanding tech, but the US believes that Tech wins wars. It does help, but certainly doesn't win.

    There isn't a single system the US employs that hasn't encountered issues with its deployment in a warzone. They ventured to the Gulf War with an Abrams with no filters. They tried to fix it and made it worse just in time for them to break down regularly during the Iraq War.

    The Raptor is out performed by the Flanker, plus the Raptor doesn't have "See it Kill It". The world's most advanced fighter has to look directly at its target to destroy it, much like World War One and Two aircraft.

    I'm not saying that the US are weak, far from it, its just they seem to have this ideal that more tech is better. Yet even Russian ICBMs with the most basic systems are more accurate, less prone to technical issues and yet more powerful and more reliable then any American counterpart.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pakistan is no Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam- it'll be more difficult than all combined. The level of resistance even after the conventional forces have been defeated will be absolutely immense. Not to mention that nuclear weapons will be used to target groupings of NATO troops.

    An INVASION is impossible- NATO can't control urban Afghanistan let alone Pakistan which is enormous comparatively and far more complex. A military defeat and a bombing campaign yes- but again very costly with great loss of life and the result will most likely be extremist groups becoming the most powerful force in the country.

    Yes, the military backs groups like the Taliban due to promote Pakistani interests but it remains by far the most organised, well equipped and rational institution in the country.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    The Taimur is a dead end project. They are trying to retro fit a CX Engine system onto a carcass that's incapable of large megaton loads. They want to put a low signature engine with an effective fuel econonomy system onto a missile system that will be ineffective.

    The CX is a fantastic ICBM delivery engine. But, much like the economical versions of cars, the same principal works for ICBMs. Its lighter, less powerful and was designed to deliver cruise missiles to a target, not a thirty foot long ICBM with a nose-heavy design.

    An Indian recon aircraft took pictures during out door development and sent the pictures to America which Russia subsequently got hold of. They both claimed that Pakistan's system was ineffective. Whether this is just them putting on a brave face, I'm not sure, but I do know that the CX will not work with that sort of ICBM carcass.

    The R7s are now obsolete in Russian ICBM tech, you're absolutely right. However, despite their shortcomings, for two decades they were the ICBM that ruled over the American Minuteman and Peacemaker. Granted, the latter two were faster and easier to retro fit, but the R7 would destroy an area six times the size the largest Warhead on the American ICBMs could cause. Plus, they always had some prepared, so it negated the inefficiency of their fitting, but you're right in that they were the double decker busses of the ICBM family.

    Like I said in another post, the Russian Authorities let slip that an Arms Dealer had been caught selling TOPOR ready Frog-7 Launchers as well as the carcasses themselves. Whether or not these are fitted, no one knows, but there was recon footage to back up the Frog-7s, without the TOPORs, however.

    You're right, though. If Pakistan acquire up to date ICBMs (or at least make a decent model), we would have more reason to worry. The American 747 would'nt have a hope in hell of taking on a modern Russian ICBM, in fact supposedly in the early 2000s the Russians developed in flight air-to-air missiles for their ICBMs. So its a target of its target.
    But, if Pakistan do have R7s ready to go the US would know about them, the launch sites are massive, they knew about all the Russian launch sites during the cold war, and that was with fairly basic satellite imagery, now they've got high altitude drones they would be absolutely impossible to miss, even if they were in a heightened state of readiness it would simply take too long to launch them.

    If they indeed have Topol missiles, I'm guessing they would be the older generation ones that Russia were looking to dispose of, so don't have the same evasive defence systems that the newer generation do. It is also possible that they aren't even Topols, the Russians often used Topol launch vehicles and empty Topol canisters to conceal other less powerful missiles to give the impression that they had more Topols than they actually did.

    Needless to say the consequences of acting now, where Pakistan might have 5 Topol missiles, would be a lot less than waiting 10 or 20 years when they will inevitably acquired a much more advanced arsenal, they won't let the Indians get too far ahead of them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    If you're talking about ICBMs, I'm afraid Russia takes the cake. If you're talking about actual missiles such as Sparrows, Sidewinders, etc, Russia CERTAINLY takes the cake.

    The US currently deploys the Minuteman III; in every sector except speed it is beaten by the Russian counterparts.

    Its guidance system is "better" then its predecessors, because its predecessors couldn't put it accurately within a one kilometer ring. The Russian TOPOR is accurate to within one hundred meters.

    Its nozzle induction system is far superior, but because its lighter it can't carryas much.

    Its also a MIRV model. The MIRV isn't the best way forward. You're lowering the yield in return for having more, now granted it increases the chances of a successful strike, but you have to negate five megatons for that. Or is it ten megatons? I forget.

    It was claimed to have chaff and flare pockets too, but these weren't added, much like back up computer systems to maintain accuracy or backup ejection to ensure that even a fault in the Phase One of an ICBM's launch doesn't have the ICBM twirl off above your own turf. That means that any fault during Phase One could potentially lead to an ICBM coming straight back towards the States... Why this was overlooked is BEYOND me.

    They have outstanding tech, but the US believes that Tech wins wars. It does help, but certainly doesn't win.

    There isn't a single system the US employs that hasn't encountered issues with its deployment in a warzone. They ventured to the Gulf War with an Abrams with no filters. They tried to fix it and made it worse just in time for them to break down regularly during the Iraq War.

    The Raptor is out performed by the Flanker, plus the Raptor doesn't have "See it Kill It". The world's most advanced fighter has to look directly at its target to destroy it, much like World War One and Two aircraft.

    I'm not saying that the US are weak, far from it, its just they seem to have this ideal that more tech is better. Yet even Russian ICBMs with the most basic systems are more accurate, less prone to technical issues and yet more powerful and more reliable then any American counterpart.
    The quoted range for the latest generation of Topols is 11,000 km compared to the Minuteman III's 13,000km, but then again the major targets for Russia are a lot closer than the major targets for the US, ie Kaliningrad to Washington is a shorter flight than Alaska to Moscow (or even Maine to Moscow, I'm not sure which way round would be shorter).
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    But, if Pakistan do have R7s ready to go the US would know about them, the launch sites are massive, they knew about all the Russian launch sites during the cold war, and that was with fairly basic satellite imagery, now they've got high altitude drones they would be absolutely impossible to miss, even if they were in a heightened state of readiness it would simply take too long to launch them
    They would have them on scope now, if they are there. America's problem wouldn't be finding them, however they'd work a bit harder to destroy them. One bonus to already having your silo revealed is that you can plaster as much anti-air or anti-tank kit there as you want. A Raptor with JDAM or Bunker Buster deployment wouldn't go near more then one SAM system. No way in hell. The American's would have to use more then one aircraft, thus increasing the chances of a pilot being shot down. The US wouldn't risk that. In Afghanistan, they are contending with Orelekon 20mms, Stingers and BOFORS cannons. These are no match for military equipment that isn't a hulking C-130 or bigger. However, Pakistan's anti-air is considerably more powerful and ex-Soviet weaponry that is still used globally today. Raptors are damn fast, but they aren't that fast. Plus, they can be as stealthy as they want, but stealth doesn't negate a lock on. The Tunguska is Russia's leading mobile anti-air system, which fires 30mm rounds as well as the 9M311 missiles. Its deadly accurate and the Soviets sold over four hundred of them to Pakistan. That's merely the mobile AA defending sites and areas of strategic interest. I'm trying to think how they'd propose an attack against a Silo or mobile system; its dificult to picture an attack that doesn't involve mass aircraft. Frankly, you couldn't call anyone a coward who wouldn't want to attack a 30mm cannon, of which one round would simply tear an aircraft in half.

    However, I do agree that the R-7, if there, is a cumbersome ICBM to prep. Which does increase the chances of Indian Flankers taking them on upon flight, too, given they have the slowest climb rate of any sub-orbital ICBM. Giving them a higher chance of actually shooting them down, which is good news for whoever the ICBM was primed at. Its an old design, but the problem arises from when the R-7 is actually fully on its way. Thankfully, as you say, getting it to that stage is a timeconsuming process. Also, if I recall correctly, most silos the Soviets tested them from wouldn't allow the R-7 to be launched from inside. The pressure caused was dangerous and therefore they had to fire them above ground. This just adds to the time the missile will be above ground and from there its a much easier target and since you can't detonate a warhead by hitting it with a missile or bomb, you have nothing to worry about launching everything at it.

    If they indeed have Topol missiles, I'm guessing they would be the older generation ones that Russia were looking to dispose of, so don't have the same evasive defence systems that the newer generation do. It is also possible that they aren't even Topols, the Russians often used Topol launch vehicles and empty Topol canisters to conceal other less powerful missiles to give the impression that they had more Topols than they actually did.
    Almost certainly the 70s model. It was still effective, but against its modern counterpart its like comparing an old car to a new car. However, its still a damn good ICBM, with a huge warhead capability. Luckily, if the report is right, the Russian's sent them the carcasses only which means that they were without the warheads. If this is true, it means the Pakistanis have a method of getting warheads, in which case it supports that these carcasses are the real deal. Perhaps not the modern system, but almost certainly the older model if they are there. If it does boil down to that, a make-shift warhead will never have the power of a modern military model. I believe without military spec equipment for it they are limited to one or two megatons, which is tiny. Still devastating, but tiny.

    Needless to say the consequences of acting now, where Pakistan might have 5 Topol missiles, would be a lot less than waiting 10 or 20 years when they will inevitably acquired a much more advanced arsenal, they won't let the Indians get too far ahead of them.
    Agreed. Pakistan knows full well that it can't engage India on an conventional basis. India would utterly destroy them with minimal casulties to themselves. Pakistan is no push over, but the India Military needs a lot more credit then its given.

    However, I agree that it would be better if someone initiated some sort of strike now against the Pakistanis instead of allowing them to further pursue nuclear armament. Its the same situation in Iran however there it is fully clear that a nuclear weapons program is fully underway and at critical stages of advancement. Iran has ICBMs, there's no doubt of that. In regards to Pakistan, though, its the possibility that they have ICBMs that is concerning them... I don't understand. Iran has ICBMs and they are ready at the gates to attack them, but Pakistan wont be touched. To be honest, if this holds out much longer I think India will have to go to war with them anyway.

    (Original post by James82)
    The quoted range for the latest generation of Topols is 11,000 km compared to the Minuteman III's 13,000km, but then again the major targets for Russia are a lot closer than the major targets for the US, ie Kaliningrad to Washington is a shorter flight than Alaska to Moscow (or even Maine to Moscow, I'm not sure which way round would be shorter).
    It is? Oh, I stand corrected. And that's with the latest model of TOPOL? That's peculiar, but if that's what you've seen I stand corrected.

    America shot itsself in the foot with its Silo deployment. It has the capability to attack Russia, but they also left most of their silos within Russia's range. The rest were accessible via mobile ICBM launch anyway. The older American models, certainly, had a slight further range and I'd have used every inch of that to get away from Russian ICBM range.

    I would say Maine to Moscow would be a shorter flight, given from Alaska you've got the Bearing Straight and then thousands of miles of Eastern Russia to get over before you reach Moscow which is in the very West. China, too, has the ability to launch its entire contets of ICBMs at the States, though I'm not sure what their primary ICBM is today. I've got a niggling in my head that its a modern take on an old Russian system, however I'm not entirely sure. Though that would make sense, the Americans wouldn't ever sell the Chinese ICBMs, so they can't be American models. That leaves Russian models or the Chinese own ICBM system, which I've never heard of.

    From Maine, you have to cross the Atlantic and then Western Europe, overall a shorter flight. Do the American's have any ICBM Silos that are capable of strikes against the Middle East though, I wonder. If it can strike China, I assume that Pakistan is also well within reach. My geography of that area isn't great, and I haven't looked at a map, but I'd assume the proximity meant that most of the Middle East is within the US strike range.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nukes don't count as a reason for the lack of invasion. The US alone has the capability of taking on proper superpowers while Pakistan's nuclear capability is limited to targeting India and certainly not any NATO country. At a tactical level nuclear weapons are ineffective so in such a situation Pakistan would have simply have had it.

    That said NATO would certainly not intervene against Pakistan unless there is a really good reason, **** hit the fan and there is UN backing for it. At the current state of affairs, NATO is at most peeved off at Paksitan's inconsistency when it comes to Afghanistan, which stems not from the official stance at national level but because of regional stances.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Nukes don't count as a reason for the lack of invasion. The US alone has the capability of taking on proper superpowers while Pakistan's nuclear capability is limited to targeting India and certainly not any NATO country. At a tactical level nuclear weapons are ineffective so in such a situation Pakistan would have simply have had it.

    That said NATO would certainly not intervene against Pakistan unless there is a really good reason, **** hit the fan and there is UN backing for it. At the current state of affairs, NATO is at most peeved off at Paksitan's inconsistency when it comes to Afghanistan, which stems not from the official stance at national level but because of regional stances.
    NATO can create a 'good reason' if they wanted to. I fear that we are currently going through a period of appeasement, the public appetite doesn't want war, especially not pre-emptive wars, but we need to learn from history. If we carry on down the path of appeasement sooner or later we will regret it.

    Don't forget the Domesday (or Doomsday if you want to be all American) Clock has been gradually getting closer to midnight since the end of the cold war, it's closer to midnight now than it was for the majority of the Cold War.

    Over thousands of years we've had long periods of calm followed by long periods of war, people always claim that the last big war was the war to end all wars, then they actually start to believe it themselves and don't see the next period of war coming until it's too late.

    This hasn't been a huge problem up until now, in the grand scheme of things, wars haven't been particularly deadly when compared to disease or starvation, but the next big war won't be so forgiving. I don't even think nuclear missiles are the biggest concern of the next great war, I mean why destroy the infrastructure and wealth of your enemy when you could just launch a biological or chemical attack and just walk in and take over without a single road or building being damaged?

    The next big war will come, it's human nature, it's just a mater of when?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    says dellusional retard who gets international politics knowledge from playing training missions on Command & Conquer games.

    Let the grown ups talk now.
    I tried to positive rep you but I've done it too recently to rate you just again yet.

    Yes you're right 90% of the way, you fall down when you assume that there's any "grown ups" on tsr to talk to about it. Go work for the diplomatic service if you want to discuss this seriously, otherwise you're right - all we've got is retardedness. Although some of us, myself included - enjoy being a retard.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Do the American's have any ICBM Silos that are capable of strikes against the Middle East though, I wonder. If it can strike China, I assume that Pakistan is also well within reach. My geography of that area isn't great, and I haven't looked at a map, but I'd assume the proximity meant that most of the Middle East is within the US strike range.
    I'm guessing they have silos on Guam or their other pacific territories that could reach the Middle East, they also have Trident II, although it doesn't have the delivery capacity of Minuteman III, there will certainly be a few very close to Pakistan which can be readied for almost immediate launch and would still have a pretty devastating impact, certainly enough to neutralise any capability Pakistan has for retaliation, save for the possible 5 mobile Topols.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    NATO can create a 'good reason' if they wanted to. I fear that we are currently going through a period of appeasement, the public appetite doesn't want war, especially not pre-emptive wars, but we need to learn from history. If we carry on down the path of appeasement sooner or later we will regret it.

    Don't forget the Domesday (or Doomsday if you want to be all American) Clock has been gradually getting closer to midnight since the end of the cold war, it's closer to midnight now than it was for the majority of the Cold War.

    Over thousands of years we've had long periods of calm followed by long periods of war, people always claim that the last big war was the war to end all wars, then they actually start to believe it themselves and don't see the next period of war coming until it's too late.

    This hasn't been a huge problem up until now, in the grand scheme of things, wars haven't been particularly deadly when compared to disease or starvation, but the next big war won't be so forgiving. I don't even think nuclear missiles are the biggest concern of the next great war, I mean why destroy the infrastructure and wealth of your enemy when you could just launch a biological or chemical attack and just walk in and take over without a single road or building being damaged?

    The next big war will come, it's human nature, it's just a mater of when?
    Pakistan is not Nazi Germany, nor even a remotely evil state. There are particularly worse states that one needs to attend to (Iran and North Korea for example), yet NATO doesn't pretend to enforce some global will. In any case preemptive wars are nothing other than wars of aggression and history has shown this to be so. For example Nazi Germany's dreadful attack on the USSR is, from the eyes of Nazi Germany a preemptive strike. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour even more so. And during the Cold War both sides had a thousand and one reasons to strike preemptively against each other, yet luckily they didn't.

    Luckily the world today is made up of states that actually care for the skin of their people as much of their own. No major state in its right state of mind today is willing to start a major war and it will become even less likely in the future when the world further globalises and integrates. Any positive outcomes for major wars are increasingly less likely as advancing technology makes the military more capable and thus increasing not only the damage dealt but the damage to be expected. And furthermore because nation states are dependent on each other, today they are cooperating. And well, what is the best outcome: to cooperate and achieve a fair deal with other states to get what you need with minimal cost, or to enforce national will in order to get what you want with immense sacrifice in manpower?

    The days of major wars are long behind us and as time passes, they will be increasingly a thing of the past. As is the Doomsday Clock.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Pakistan is not Nazi Germany, nor even a remotely evil state. There are particularly worse states that one needs to attend to (Iran and North Korea for example), yet NATO doesn't pretend to enforce some global will. In any case preemptive wars are nothing other than wars of aggression and history has shown this to be so. For example Nazi Germany's dreadful attack on the USSR is, from the eyes of Nazi Germany a preemptive strike. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour even more so. And during the Cold War both sides had a thousand and one reasons to strike preemptively against each other, yet luckily they didn't.

    Luckily the world today is made up of states that actually care for the skin of their people as much of their own. No major state in its right state of mind today is willing to start a major war and it will become even less likely in the future when the world further globalises and integrates. Any positive outcomes for major wars are increasingly less likely as advancing technology makes the military more capable and thus increasing not only the damage dealt but the damage to be expected. And furthermore because nation states are dependent on each other, today they are cooperating. And well, what is the best outcome: to cooperate and achieve a fair deal with other states to get what you need with minimal cost, or to enforce national will in order to get what you want with immense sacrifice in manpower?

    The days of major wars are long behind us and as time passes, they will be increasingly a thing of the past. As is the Doomsday Clock.
    Maybe you should research what commentators wrote after the First World War or after the Napoleonic wars or even after the Holy wars, you'd be surprised how much you have in common with them.

    War and peace is cyclical, a major period of war will come again as sure as the turning of the tides. Each period of war is followed by huge arms races, but no political or public will to actually use them because of the collective memory of recent events, but as the collective memory fades so does the resistance to war. Just look at history, the holy wars followed by the renaissance, the reformation followed by the age of enlightenment, the napoleonic wars followed by the industrial revolution, the world wars followed by the age of computers. A period of war is always followed by a period of peace and advancement which is always followed by a period of war, why would it be an different now?

    Maybe we can hold off the next great period of war for a decade, maybe a century, who knows? But one thing is for sure, it will come again, and the other thing we know for sure is that humans will never learn from history, they will always think it will be different this time. The tinderbox is growing, it only needs one spark, all I'm saying is it might be better for that spark to come soon before the tinderbox becomes too big.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)

    A military defeat and a bombing campaign yes- but again very costly with great loss of life and the result will most likely be extremist groups becoming the most powerful force in the country.
    .

    In b4

    " so no real change then"

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 26, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.