Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America Should Attack Pakistan
DGreat1    12/9/2008 12:14:47 PM
America needs to seriously consider attacking Pakistan. This will allow America to install a government that is willing to disable the nuclear weapons making apparutus in Pakistan in return for economic aid packages that will ensure the long term stability and viability of Pakistan. Such an initiative would work in the best interests of Pakistan's civilian population. This type of initiative would also neutralize the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban friendly contingent of the current Pakistani government. It is important to note that their is only a short window of opportunity concerning the implementation of this initiative, as this option will be neutralized by any scenario that has Iran emerging as the second state sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. America is currently faced with a use it or lose it proposition in regards to preemptive attack options concerning Pakistan, as America will undoubtedly lose the support of Pakistan once Iran acquires its own nuclear arsenal. While it is a frightening scenario, the reality is that due to America's current obligations to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran may very well acquire a nuclear weapons making capability. In this scenario, Pakistan will be pressured by the Islamic fundamentalist influenced Arab street to distance themselves from America as a way of retaining the significant influence they enjoy as the first state sponsor of terrorism. America's strategic position in Afghanistan would be dramatically strengthened by the continuity and controlled space convergence benefits that would be facilitated by a military offensive against Pakistan. I make this assertion with the understanding that President Elect OBama will increase the numerical troop strength of U.S. forces in Afghanistan as promised. I will propose a strategy for facilitating the disablement of Irans nuclear capabilities in a future post.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
DGreat1       12/9/2008 12:33:34 PM
Attack!!!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/9/2008 9:26:58 PM
 
World War 3!!!
 
Surely you aren't for real, eh?
 
Curious (and a litle disturbed).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       12/10/2008 6:13:51 AM
I would be worried about your sanity if I thought this was a serious posting.
 
Invading Pakistan would be like simultaneously invading Iraq and Somalia, only 5x worse because the total population is over 130 million.  We just do not have the manpower.  The only way it would be practical would be to ally with India (probably have to anyway for logistics) which would make it a religious war (Muslim vs. Hindu).
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/12/2008 12:10:32 AM
To Dropbear and Warnerd
 
We are going to have to face facts here. There is a high probability that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence is problematic given the fact that America is currently engaged in a two front war.These factors have also made the likelihood of a long term alliance between America and Pakistan highly doubtful. Therefore, America is going to have to establish a flashpoint for military intervention in both Pakistan and Iran. Surely you understand that if Pakistan is not decisively deterred before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then we will have to attack Iran in the infancy stages of their nuclear achievement in addition to attacking a Pakistani nation that will be forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East. In this scenario, Pakistan will be motivated to indulge in a provocative manner concerning their role in facilitating  terrorist attacks, as they will be anxious to prove that they still have control over their terror sponsoring, proxy war subordinates in the region(these proxy war subordinates are comprised of terror sponsoring nations and terrorist organizations). What better way to prove you are still viable in regards to terrorism? 
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/12/2008 12:26:59 AM
Why does everyone have blinders on when talking about Pakistan? Pakistan is still a state sponsor of terrorism. The lethality of this threat is dramatically increased by the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Oh, and by the way, Pakistan has a fragile form of governance that is just a military coup away from placing nuclear weapons into the hands of Taliban friendly contingents of the Pakistani government.To suggest that this poses a threat to America is a major understatement.We are going to have to face facts here. There is a high probability that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence is problematic given the fact that America is currently engaged in a two front war.These factors have also made the likelihood of a long term alliance between America and Pakistan highly doubtful. Therefore, America is going to have to establish a flashpoint for military intervention in both Pakistan and Iran. Surely you understand that if Pakistan is not decisively deterred before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then we will have to attack Iran in the infancy stages of their nuclear achievement in addition to attacking a Pakistani nation that will be forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East. In this scenario, Pakistan will be motivated to indulge in a provocative manner concerning their role in facilitating  terrorist attacks, as they will be anxious to prove that they still have control over their terror sponsoring, proxy war subordinates in the region(these proxy war subordinates are comprised of terror sponsoring nations and terrorist organizations). What better way to prove you are still viable in regards to terrorism?
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/12/2008 11:36:52 AM
Why does everyone have blinders on when talking about Pakistan? Pakistan is still a state sponsor of terrorism. The lethality of this threat is dramatically increased by the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Oh, and by the way, Pakistan has a fragile form of governance that is just a military coup away from placing nuclear weapons into the hands of Taliban friendly contingents of the Pakistani government.To suggest that this poses a threat to America is a major understatement.We are going to have to face facts here. There is a high probability that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence is problematic given the fact that America is currently engaged in a two front war.These factors have also made the likelihood of a long term alliance between America and Pakistan highly doubtful. Therefore, America is going to have to establish a flashpoint for military intervention in both Pakistan and Iran. Surely you understand that if Pakistan is not decisively deterred before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then we will have to attack Iran in the infancy stages of their nuclear achievement in addition to attacking a Pakistani nation that will be forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East. In this scenario, Pakistan will be motivated to indulge in a provocative manner concerning their role in facilitating  terrorist attacks, as they will be anxious to prove that they still have control over their terror sponsoring, proxy war subordinates in the region(these proxy war subordinates are comprised of terror sponsoring nations and terrorist organizations). What better way to prove you are still viable in regards to terrorism?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/12/2008 11:47:49 PM
We are going to have to face facts here. There is a high probability that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence is problematic given the fact that America is currently engaged in a two front war.

I would have thought that your deterrence value lied in the fact that you are a nuke armed superpower and that Iran would be aware of that. I don't think that because you are engaged in two different fronts and that your conventional forces are being divided would be seen by I ran to show that Uncle Sam would not be able to handle Iran if it came to a nuclear engagement. I think these are two separarte issues.


These factors have also made the likelihood of a long term alliance between America and Pakistan highly doubtful.

Maybe you should have been on the other side like Commonwealth nations were to an extent. Instead of supporting Pakistan for years you should have gone with the Indian side. The upside of that would have been greater military/commercial sales within India, whereas the Indians chose to look towards the Soviet Union for support.

Therefore, America is going to have to establish a flashpoint for military intervention in both Pakistan and Iran.
 
Establish a flashpoint???? Why???

Surely you understand that if Pakistan is not decisively deterred before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then we will have to attack Iran in the infancy stages of their nuclear achievement in addition to attacking a Pakistani nation that will be forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East.

No, sorry I don't understand. I wasn't aware that the leadership of Pakistan had made comments on the world stage that they want to wipe other sovereign nations of the face of the planet. I fail to see how Iran and Pakistan are similar, albeit for the demographic relevance of being Muslim majority nations in nature. Do you honestly think Iran would be bothered to wait and see what sort of outcome would ensue if the USA was to engage in military action with Pakistan?


In this scenario, Pakistan will be motivated to indulge in a provocative manner concerning their role in facilitating  terrorist attacks, as they will be anxious to prove that they still have control over their terror sponsoring, proxy war subordinates in the region(these proxy war subordinates are comprised of terror sponsoring nations and terrorist organizations). What better way to prove you are still viable in regards to terrorism? 
 
Are you talking about the nation State or groups within it, here?
 
 
Do you really want to open up another crusade, this time including the Hindu population along with christian and muslims?
 
By all means, lob a few cruise missiles and launch stealth bomber strikes on key strategic targets in Pakistan if you feel this will ultimately achieve something (taking into account that it is difficult to turn a nations infrastructure into the stoneage when it is arguable that it is already in this state to begin with), other than producing more CNN copy and photo opportunities of American flags draped over coffins of countless G.I.'s.
 
Another unwinnable war.
 
Curious.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       12/13/2008 3:27:27 AM
GF, don't waste your time. This is the return (again) of Braddock, caesar Braddock, AKA terrence Jones, self proclaimed strategist and all around washout.
 
I've rarely someone banned from the US Army messasge boards, but TJ earned that honor.
 
How'd the q-course work out for you, TJ?
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       12/13/2008 3:31:52 AM
Mea Culpa, DB. Thought it was GF, not you.
 
If you want to get into a good discussion with TJ, ask him about his design for a new paratroper transport, complete with jump doors IN FRONT of the wings/engine nacelles.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    DGreat1   12/14/2008 4:16:42 AM
To DGreat1:
To Dropbear and Warnerd

We are going to have to face facts here. There is a high probability that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence is problematic given the fact that America is currently engaged in a two front war.These factors have also made the likelihood of a long term alliance between America and Pakistan highly doubtful. Therefore, America is going to have to establish a flashpoint for military intervention in both Pakistan and Iran. Surely you understand that if Pakistan is not decisively deterred before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then we will have to attack Iran in the infancy stages of their nuclear achievement in addition to attacking a Pakistani nation that will be forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East. In this scenario, Pakistan will be motivated to indulge in a provocative manner concerning their role in facilitating  terrorist attacks, as they will be anxious to prove that they still have control over their terror sponsoring, proxy war subordinates in the region(these proxy war subordinates are comprised of terror sponsoring nations and terrorist organizations). What better way to prove you are still viable in regards to terrorism? 


Please slow down, stop babbling, and explain yourself.
 
Why would a nuclear Iran lead to Pakistan being forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East.?  Given the fact that Iran is Shia and Pakistan is Sunni it's more likely to drive them closer to the US.
 
As for invading Pakistan, how should we go about it?  What forces would we need?  Where would we setup our logistics base and launch the attack from?  What is the invasion route?  What are the objectives?  What is the exit strategy?
 
Understand also, I did not say we should not attack, I said we cannot.  We do not have the forces that would be needed and more importantly we do not have a place to launch it from.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics