Why hasn't Pakistan been attacked by NATO yet?
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.
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.
Scroll to see replies
Pakistan is defiantly a crooked country but not enough to warrant an invasion.
you ever hear about the mysterious drones circulating northern pakistan? Hmmm smells like NATO to me? wouldnt you agree?
Nukes.
Nukes.
One of our allies in the region (pretty sure supplies for Afghan come through Pakistan).
And I doubt very highly that NATO is planning to attack Syria...
One of our allies in the region (pretty sure supplies for Afghan come through Pakistan).
And I doubt very highly that NATO is planning to attack Syria...
As others have said, Nuclear Weapons. India would throw itself in on that War, coming straight to our aid, however both Nations have been at each other's throats for years. Nuclear war is a likely possibility between those two Nations.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
Because Pakistan are chums with the US, and the US really don't care about Al-Qaeda that much apart from when they're trying to sabotage the US or close US allies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc).
Original post by DH-Biker
Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
Really?
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.
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.
Original post by B-Man. Really?
Really?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.
Original post by DH-Biker
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.
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.
Pakistan wouldn't survive openly fighting the west.
Original post by DH-Biker
As others have said, Nuclear Weapons. India would throw itself in on that War, coming straight to our aid, however both Nations have been at each other's throats for years. Nuclear war is a likely possibility between those two Nations.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
And China.
If NATO/India were to do anything, China has expressed its willingness to offer its services to Pakistan.
That whole region is a mine field and no one wants to put a foot wrong.
I don't think Pakistan's nukes come into it, they don't have the delivery systems to reach anywhere of 'importance' to the western powers. You can be pretty sure that the vast majority of their nukes are pointed at India and the rest are pointed at China. I suppose going to war with Pakistan is one way to ease the overpopulation problems in the world.
To be honest though, I think we might regret not going into Pakistan in the very near future, at least now they have a 'relatively' moderate government and don't possess the delivery systems to target the west, in 10 or 20 years time, when we won't be able to take any action, we might just wonder why.
To be honest though, I think we might regret not going into Pakistan in the very near future, at least now they have a 'relatively' moderate government and don't possess the delivery systems to target the west, in 10 or 20 years time, when we won't be able to take any action, we might just wonder why.
Original post by RyanT
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.
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.
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.
Even if we did attack them and somehow manage to avoid nuclear war what would we do next? I know we (the West) seem to have left this as a bit of an after thought in recent times but you might have noticed that's when all the real trouble begins.
I don't think anyone will argue Pakistan isn't a mess and a nuisance but it would be a bigger mess and nuisance after an invasion.
p.s. Pakistan would not directly aid Iran in any war. Not a chance.
I don't think anyone will argue Pakistan isn't a mess and a nuisance but it would be a bigger mess and nuisance after an invasion.
p.s. Pakistan would not directly aid Iran in any war. Not a chance.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by DH-Biker
As others have said, Nuclear Weapons. India would throw itself in on that War, coming straight to our aid, however both Nations have been at each other's throats for years. Nuclear war is a likely possibility between those two Nations.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
NATO doesn't want to get involved in a War that has a high chance of Nuclear combat. Though, America and Israel really seem to want to have a go at Iran; but if they do, Pakistan will likely step in too.
India will destroy Pakistan on a conventional basis, however I believe that a Nuclear Attack on India would cause more damage.
NATO has constant eyes on Pakistan, just as it does Iran, but whereas I'd say a war with Iran is almost certain, a war with Pakistan seems much less likely.
You are a fool if you actually think that Pakistan would attack any nation in the defence of Iran.
Original post by RyanT
Pakistan wouldn't survive openly fighting the west.
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.
After World War Two, several American Generals wanted to attack Russia. Even after seeing the devastation they reaped among Eastern Germany. Knowing full well they'd be beaten, the sane part of the Allies forbayed it. Not to mention other examples where people will negate the likelyhood of success to attack them anyway.
Original post by killa78
And China.
If NATO/India were to do anything, China has expressed its willingness to offer its services to Pakistan.
That whole region is a mine field and no one wants to put a foot wrong.
If NATO/India were to do anything, China has expressed its willingness to offer its services to Pakistan.
That whole region is a mine field and no one wants to put a foot wrong.
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.
Original post by James82
I don't think Pakistan's nukes come into it, they don't have the delivery systems to reach anywhere of 'importance' to the western powers. You can be pretty sure that the vast majority of their nukes are pointed at India and the rest are pointed at China. I suppose going to war with Pakistan is one way to ease the overpopulation problems in the world
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.
Original post by DH-Biker
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.
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.
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.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- predictions for Edexcel GCSE history !!
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- The Cricket Society IV
- Is Turkey safe to visit?
- Heart Problem
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- A nuclear attack may have started now.
- MSc Finance, Accounting and Management | Waleed's student blog
- LLB for Graduates: Qualifying Law Degree in Pakistan?
- BTEC IT level 3 unit 11 Cyber Security
- Mastercard Africa scholarship funding MPhil cambridge 24-25
- Forced marriage
- Still awaiting confirmation from the Open University
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- SFE tuition fee expected date
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
