I don't agree with this assessment at all. There is nothing India would love more than for the United States to take up arms against Pakistan. Not only would they allow us to base our forces there, but they'd participate to the fullest extent of their ability. I seriously doubt Pakistan would use nuclear weapons at all under these circumstances. I doubt they would use chemicals weapons, either. The surest way to kill yourself is to use such weapons against the United States. The history of muslim nations, aside from perhaps Afghanistan in the eighties, shows that they don't fight to the death. They capitulate, and bide their time. This is what is happening in Iraq. I don't believe that the large sunni population would be any more of a factor in Pakistan than it is in Iraq. The harsher a hand that is shown to muslims, the less apt they are to take up arms. History has shown this consistently. Since the pretext for this war would seemingly be both weapons of mass destruction, and the continued hunt for al Qaeda, Pakistan would probably fall somewhere between Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of media/public support. DoD projects that it would take 550,000 Americans, 120,000 Japanese, and the whole of South Korea to successfully engage North Korea. Pakistan is much more populous than North Korea, but not as difficult terrain wise. Another factor to consider here, in terms of necessary troop numbers, is that Asia nations historically fight to the death, whereas muslim nations do NOT. Is there any reason to doubt that the whole of India, coupled with 300,000 Americans could not conquer, and occupy Pakistan? I'll post more later, I have to head out for a while now.

Additionally, I think that the korean war serves as a good template for this conflict. The ROK and UN forces were able to advance through more mountainous terrain than is found in Pakistan, and had the North on the verge of defeat in November of 1950. This was done with a sea borne assault, using 1950 technology. It was also achieved in spite of the fact that the North Korean air force was still fully functional, and the Soviet Union, and China continually supplied the North with weapons, and pilots. Pakistan would be facing modern American air power, with no outlet for resupply. Their air force would be lucky to last two weeks. After that, it's just a matter of dropping enough bombs to allow for a landing. This, of course, is all unlikely to be necessary, given the probability of Indian involvement.

I really do not think that India would get involved. They would not want to risk their cities being nuked by Pakistan... India probably would covertly allow US Special Forces to operate from its territory and would likely allow the US overflight rights. If you want to stretch it we can agree that India might possibly permit the U.S. to deploy troops on Indian soil, although that is somewhat doubtful. Full scale involvement? No, almost certainly not. You may disagree, but it is better to assume the worse case scenario - India does not get involved. Pakistan is a large country with various types of terrain. Some of the terrain is as bad as that in Afghanistan - much worse than in North Korea - though admitadly parts of Pakistan are flat. Also consider the length of the supply lines - much longer than those in Iraq or North Korea. In any case, the Muslim world would go berserk if Pakistan was invaded causing massive problems for the U.S. the world over. In fact, the most likely scenario for such an invasion would be if a fanatical Islamist government seized power in Pakistan... Also bear in mind that after the international public relations disaster of the Iraq War, U.S. would likely have to carry out this invasion without allies. It took 250,000 troops to invade Iraq. Somehow, I truly doubt 300,000 U.S. troops would be sufficient to invade a country much larger in size and with a population fully 6 times greater than Iraq. The Pakistani armed forces are also larger (610,000 men) than Iraq's and of higher quality too (and I would venture to say that Pakistani military potential in a war is significantly greater than North Korea's if you take mobilization into account). Bear in mind that there would be a nationwide mobilization in Pakistan, which would bring this number much higher. Unlike in Iraq, USA also does not have over decade years of no-fly zones to degrade the Pakistani air-defence network and map targets. Furthermore, unlike Iraq with the Shia and the Kurds, Pakistan does not have major ethnic groups that would be sympathetic and willing to aid or at least not oppose the U.S. invasion, so if you combine this fact with the fact that Pakistan has 6 times Iraq's population, the obvious conclusion is that the insurgent forces would be much, much larger than in Iraq. This would make the invasion of Pakistan much more difficult and make occupation hellishly difficult. .

"I really do not think that India would get involved. They would not want to risk their cities being nuked by Pakistan..." This is exactly why I believe they would get involved. Nothing could deter them better than the presence of American troops in India. What would have happened in Iraq were to have nuked Kuwait in March of 2003? (Assuming that they had nukes) "You may disagree, but it is better to assume the worse case scenario - India does not get involved." I agree that it's best to assume the worst case scenario. That was the focus of my second post. It might require a longer air campaign, but with no homegrown technology, and no powerful allies for quick resupply, I think they'd crumble. "Pakistan is a large country with various types of terrain. Some of the terrain is as bad as that in Afghanistan - much worse than in North Korea - though admitadly parts of Pakistan are flat. Also consider the length of the supply lines - much longer than those in Iraq or North Korea." All this says to me is bigger air campaign. "In any case, the Muslim world would go berserk if Pakistan was invaded causing massive problems for the U.S. the world over." Nah, Muslims are weak willed. They are historically emboldened when shown an easy hand. I think everyone in the Muslim world would probably go berserk, but for different reasons. They would cower in fear that they could be next. "In fact, the most likely scenario for such an invasion would be if a fanatical Islamist government seized power in Pakistan..." I agree completely. "Also bear in mind that after the international public relations disaster of the Iraq War, U.S. would likely have to carry out this invasion without allies." I wouldn't characterize the attention whoring of the United Nations, France, and other members of the "international community" as a disaster. I'd call it laughable. The failure to attain basing rights from Saudi Arabia, and Turkey didn't seem to matter much in the end. Pakistan borders four nations. China, India, Afghanistan, and Iran. It's safe to say we won't get basing rights from Iran, or China. We will get them in Afghanistan, and we might get them in India. Afghanistan's current government owes everything to the United States. India's will be concerned only with the effect their involvement (or non-involvement) will have on their own security. None of the issues of the Iraq war would see the light of day. Politics won't affect the logistics of this war much, aside perhaps from securing support from Britain. (The only other nation that could reasonably be expected to commit a sizable number of ground troops.) "It took 250,000 troops to invade Iraq. Somehow, I truly doubt 300,000 U.S. troops would be sufficient to invade a country much larger in size and with a population fully 6 times greater than Iraq." The 300,000 figure was based on India's involvement. "The Pakistani armed forces are also larger (610,000 men) than Iraq's and of higher quality too (and I would venture to say that Pakistani military potential in a war is significantly greater than North Korea's if you take mobilization into account). " North Korea has over a million men in their armed forces. Iraq had two million in 1991. How would they be able to mobilize while at war with the United States? Even if they could train conscripts with a fair amount of impunity, they wouldn't have enough time, or enough vehicles to make an impact. "Furthermore, unlike Iraq with the Shia and the Kurds, Pakistan does not have major ethnic groups that would be sympathetic and willing to aid or at least not oppose the U.S. invasion" Do you think it would have made any kind of a difference in Iraq if we had to fight the kurds too? "So if you combine this fact with the fact that Pakistan has 6 times Iraq's population, the obvious conclusion is that the insurgent forces would be much, much larger than in Iraq." The bulk of the Iraqi insurgents are former government officials, and foreign terrorists. The population appears to be unwilling to join with these groups against us. I don't see a nationwide anti-U.S. resistance taking place. The situation will likely be similar to Iraq, and the people, even if they are Sunnis, will be given a clear choice between the old and the new. Most people will not opt for harsh dictatorship over self-determination. Especially when restoring the harsh dictatorship involves combat against the United States army. This would make the invasion of Pakistan much more difficult and make occupation hellishly difficult.

Occupation of Pakistan would be very difficult for anyone - much more difficult than Iraq. Almost impossible, I'd say. However, the objective of invading Pakistan would only be to demolish its military infrastructure. India would grasp the chance to be involved in such an objective, as it has come close to doing it on its own on several occassions in the last 5 years. All the US would need to do would be to own the skies - nothing else. That is something they could do without much effort from bases in India and Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai hates Pakistan). Once this is achieved, the land invasion for Indian forces would be a cakewalk.

Invading anywhere, right now for the US is an exceptinally bad idea. Pakistan is much bigger and has forces stronger than Saddams forces ever were. It posseses nukes and reasonably good missiles to deliver them. It has Jehadi elements who are so jingoistic, that they'll stop at nothing. But if push comes to shove and Osama and his buddies get these nukes, then the US will be left with no alternative than invasion... at least to secure the nukes. This is where India may have a role to play. Whether it will, is debatable. Under the present circumstances the best we could hope for would be a joint US Pakistani operation with India as watchdog.. to this Pakistan will never agree, and even if pushed hard, only a grudging Musharraf would. Then again, he could be assasinated ... which was nealry pulled off twice in two weeks... Regarding the Islamic world, nah.. they don't like Pakistan much. Many would rather do business with India which has a reasonably decent economy and political stability. There are more muslims in India than the population of Pakistan. They don't like them much either.

Our Muslims don't like Pakistanis much that is...

What a question? Invading pakistan by US is definitely achievable if India joins. But that also means China should not get involved supporting paksitan with logistics and technology during war. On contrary I think if there is such threat to pakistan then definitely they will nuke India first not even thinking about their future. And even if India does not get involved they still will nuke India because they got so much Jealousy and hatred for India as it much far in economic developments. So in this case there should be a silent break out war by US & India without any reason and allies should prepare their defence systems well enough then no doubt pakistan will occupied. Alone US even using Indian air space cannot invade pakistan because they also require intelligence support from Indian side and more troops to out number pakistani troops. I think china will not interfere in this case only if they recognize US is no threat to them during the war. But US cannot afford any more wars the soldiers are tired and unhappy with their present situation in Iraq & Afhganistan. Remember if US is threatened by Terrorists from pakistan having nukes then defientely they will start attacking the nuclear facilites only when paksitan disagrees to capture to terrorists and not give up their nuclear weapons.

So what, if the pakistan has nukes. The US has satelites in space that patrol the world. They have satelites that can disable a nuke while its in the air. The american broders can not even be penetrated by air thanks to the most brilliant scientists in the world. If there was a war, AMerica could take over Pakistan 500 times over without stepping one foot into pakistan. Don't underestimate americas ablilites or there world leading technoligies. Pakistan is still in the stoneage compared to the american society, technology, military, human rights,etc. AtillaHun, what have you been smoking? India hates the muslim world. India hates indian muslims they kill them or they try to convert them. Just because there are more muslims in India than pakistan doesn't mean there is an acceptance. Infact hindu's are more concerned of the excess pop. thats why there are many roits, where even the police start to kill muslims! With this much hatred do you think any islamic countries would do business with India, where as Pakistan posseses a pop. of 99% muslims and is a huge supporter of islam. If anything they would would do business with pakistan and despise india. Also pakistan is the only islamic country to have nuclear power,who are now also sharing their nuclear secrets with iran. So explain your logic, AtillaHun? The islamic world i believe would love pakistan for things like funding the taliban and hating india and isreal.

I would like to point one thing out: The US likely has detailed knowledge of the extent and location of most or all of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A quick air strike using B-2s could probably eliminate it in the first strike.