Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 218

Thread: US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

  1. #196
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Every nuclear reactor in the world has its own unique signature. We can tell which nuclear reactor the fissile materials came from. The Pakistanis can reject everything they want but they cannot refuse the nuclear forensic evidence.
    I wasn't clear, so my apologies.

    I wasn't contradicting DE or what you have said. I am thinking of a scenario when a nuke goes off in NY/Mumbai, the Pakmil accepts that it is one of theirs, but, that was stolen and detonated. The PA hand over a low level PA officer who they claim passed on the nuke and the launch codes to a <terrorist organisation/lone wolf>. That is, they wash their hands off the issue. What happens next? Does US or India still retaliate massively against a country with a population of 200 million and kill innocent abduls?

  2. #197
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The remnants of the BIA that Pak inherited is long gone. PA is not a professional military anymore. They are the religious zealots that the US hunts and drones in AfPak region (PA regulars and ISI are often killed with irregulars).
    Very good, even more reason then to make damn sure the PA never loses a nuke

    If relationship deterioriates further to the extent that US declares Pak as a terrorist state, and the country is on the verge of collapse, the Pakmil would find a way out to engage US and India. Nukes then will be the end-game.
    Pakmill will be subordinate before they engage anyone. That will be the cue to the world what to expect.

    My question is why will PA surrender authority to a bunch of extremists if they want to take on the world ?

    Nukes are not military weapons. nukes are political weapons. Whoever has them controls the country

    The military in general does not like nukes. They cost too much and take away scarce resources. The PA is an obvious exception and will not cede political control

    So, with all the praise and honor bestowed on the Pakmil and the ISI, does my POV that an attack in NY or Mumbai (most probably) take place with the active knowledge of the thekedars of Islam make sense?
    No it does not but i agree it qualifies as a terrifying story. And that is for the pols of this world who as a collective are risk averse. Deterrence or not.

    Are the generals that crazy? Nope. But the beauty of the PA is that they take a dump thinking nobody is watching, and then deny it outright. Did they ever think Osama would be found? They denied harboring Osama.
    I didn't. Shortly after 9/11 happened i figured the US would never catch OBL

    What you say about nukes is true, but what if the Pakmil rejects the accusations after one goes off in NY or Mumbai? Will US or India retaliate with nukes against a country of 200 million?
    Desperate times need desperate measures.

    If you do not believe in deterrence then anything is possible, carefully examine any narratives and ask yourself whether it passes the deterrence test. The scary stories rarely ever do

    And to answer your last sentence - I don't believe in deterrance against rouge countries, nuclear or non-nuclear. If the stage is set for us to burn, let's burn and bury them first.
    bingo

    Will you listen to reason ? of course not. Because you are scared.

    Now i can control you : D
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Jan 18, at 19:24.

  3. #198
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I wasn't clear, so my apologies.

    I wasn't contradicting DE or what you have said. I am thinking of a scenario when a nuke goes off in NY/Mumbai, the Pakmil accepts that it is one of theirs, but, that was stolen and detonated. The PA hand over a low level PA officer who they claim passed on the nuke and the launch codes to a <terrorist organisation/lone wolf>. That is, they wash their hands off the issue. What happens next? Does US or India still retaliate massively against a country with a population of 200 million and kill innocent abduls?
    If you cannot control your nukes (and it's obvious you cannot), we will control them for you (translation: occupation of Pakistan), whether you like it or not.

  4. #199
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,547
    After diagnosing Pakistan as the problem, US faces the uphill task of acting against it - Bruce Riedel

    After a year in office, US President Donald Trump's administration has accurately described Pakistan's support for terrorism in general, and for the Afghan Taliban in particular. But it has yet to lay out a strategy to deal with their support.

    Pakistan's generals, who run the terrorism policy, believe Trump is all talk and little action, mostly cutting aid they don't need. Trump is notoriously mercurial. But there is much Washington can do if he's serious.

    For months, Washington has spoken out clearly about the Pakistani army's longstanding support for terrorist organisations like the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Trump officials have been unequivocal about Pakistan's behaviour, including in the roll-out of their Afghanistan policy and the overall national security policy last year.

    Vice President Mike Pence put Pakistan 'on notice' when he visited Afghanistan last month. Last week, Trump tweeted that his two predecessors had spent $33 billion in aid in a failed attempt to persuade Pakistan to change policy, adding that he would not follow that approach.

    Most of the aid, more than $25 billion, was provided before the SEAL (US Navy's Sea, Air and Land teams) raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden hiding in the army cantonment city of Abbottabad in 2011. Aid levels declined significantly after that.

    Withholding money is not much of a penalty, the $250 million in the pipeline is an insignificant threat.

    The Pakistani military has already dismissed Washington's threats as empty posturing. It believes that Trump is not seriously committed to the Afghan mission and will eventually disengage from the US's longest war, leaving Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban the winners.

    Symbolic Steps

    There is much the US can do to alter Pakistan's assessment. Some steps would be mostly symbolic, but important. It could remove Pakistan from the category of a major non-Nato ally that George WBush gave it, a designation that qualifies Pakistan for receiving certain military technologies. It would signal the end of that alliance.

    A much more substantial approach would involve exploiting Trump's strong relationships with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Both host large emigre Pakistani worker populations and have been major aid donors for Pakistan's economy. Former head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mansour, was a frequent traveller to Dubai and Manama, where he went to raise money for the group before being killed in a drone strike in 2016. Trump has strengthened US ties to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE significantly. Now is the time to use them.

    Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) to not only shut down the Taliban's fund-raising, but also to prosecute their funders, even if they have royal connections. The two states have close ties to the ISI. The Saudis and their Gulf allies say they are committed to fighting terrorism. Washington should put the Afghan Taliban, which kills US soldiers, at the top of the list along with LeT.

    Moreover, the Saudis should use their considerable influence in Islamabad and Rawalpindi to cut ISI aid to the Taliban and LeT. MBS and MBZ should warn Rawalpindi that any effort to deny US access to Afghanistan via Pakistan for supplies or air power—a major concern of the Pentagon—will result in damages to Pakistan's ties to them.

    The most extreme step that can be taken is to label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, like Iran. This would cut off all assistance and engagement with Pakistan, including spare parts for F16s and other equipment provided since 2001. The US would block multinational banking funding for Pakistan's economy.

    It's a draconian step. It's probably better used as a threat than implemented. But it's in Trump's tool bag. It should be used in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi as a warning.

    Unilateral Actions
    An alternative approach for Trump is to rely primarily on unilateral actions by his own security services. President Barack Obama made his government's AfPak policy's top priority the disruption, dismantlement and defeat of al-Qaeda's core in Pakistan in 2009. The drone war was the means and was pursued relentlessly despite Pakistan's vocal objections. It was a success.

    Al-Qaeda in Pakistan is a shell of what it was in 2009. Obama only used the drones sparingly against the Taliban, but the US did get Mullah Mansour. The Taliban is a somewhat harder target than al-Qaeda was because it often operates in major cities like Quetta and Karachi but it is vulnerable to disruption. Again Pakistan will complain.

    Indeed, the great virtue of the unilateral approach is it doesn't rely on Pakistani cooperation (sic). Washington has studied the covert options at its disposal and has been debating whether to employ such a policy for a year.

    The US has diagnosed the problem. Now it is facing the hard part. Pakistan is in the middle of a complex political meltdown, engineered by the army and others. New elections will come this year. But the need for urgency is also real both for US troops in Afghanistan, and for India, which has enormous stakes in Washington acting forcefully.

  5. #200
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,389
    China Building Military Base on Afghan-Tajik Border | Eurasia Net | Jan 08 2017

    China is building a military base for the Afghan armed forces in the province of Badakhshan, a senior Afghan military official has said. The plan, if it is realized, promises a deeper Chinese military involvement in Tajikistan, which is necessary as a supply corridor to Badakhshan.

    The plans for the new base were worked out during a visit last month by an Afghan defense delegation to Beijing, the official, General Dawlat Waziri, told the news site Fergana News.

    At that meeting, the two sides announced their intention to “deepen pragmatic cooperation in various fields including anti-terrorism operations, and push forward the state and military relations between the two countries.”

    China will supply everything the base needs, Waziri said, including "weapons, uniforms for soldiers, military equiment and everything else needed for its [the base's] functioning," Fergana reported.

    This is the latest move in Beijing's steadily increasing involvement in security issues on its western border.

    "China worries that Chinese Uighurs among the terrorists' ranks can cross into Chinese territory through Afghanistan and become a headache for the Chinese authorities," one Afghan security official told Fergana on condition of anonymity.

    For Central Asia, this has important implications because Tajijkistan appears to be an integral part of Chinese-Afghan military cooperation. Badakhshan shares a short (76-kilometer) border with China, but in a region impassable by vehicles.

    Badakhshan is most easily reached from China via Tajikistan's Pamir region, and some media have reported that Chinese military vehicles were using Tajikistan territory to transit to Badakhshan for military patrols. (A western diplomat in Central Asia has told The Bug Pit that those reports were credible.)

    China, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan (which also borders Badakhstan) are all members of a new Beijing-led security grouping, the Quadrilateral Cooperation and Coordination Mechanism, rolled out in 2016, to Russia's consternation. Also in 2016, China and Tajikistan held their first-ever joint bilateral military exercises in the part of Tajikistan bordering on Badakhshan.

    A Chinese official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Kabul-based analyst Franz J. Marty a year ago that the Chinese patrols inside Afghanistan had ended in late 2016.

    It's not clear whether those patrols were ever restarted, but this base, if realized, would seem to portend much heavier traffic in the future.

    The Fergana report said, citing an unnamed source in the Afghanistan Defense Ministry, that work has already begun on the base's planning. A special commission has been created to work out the base's location and other technical details, and a delegation of Chinese military experts were going to be visiting Afghanistan in the coming days to work on that, Fergana reported.

  6. #201
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,547
    SAEED INCITED UK MUSLIMS TO MILITANCY, SAYS BBC REPORT

    HAFIZ Muhammad Saeed, the head of the banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), toured Britain during the 1990s, stirring up Muslim youths to become jihadis years before 9/11, a BBC investigation has found.

    Hafiz Saeed, who has a $10 million bounty on his head for allegedly masterminding the Nov 2008 attacks in Mumbai, thrilled audiences in packed mosques in cities around this country by calling for a return to the days when Muslims waged jihad and infidels paid them protection money.

    Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has always denied involvement in the Mumbai carnage.

    The revelation came amidst concerns for the British government and intelligence agencies about the large number of Muslims going abroad to fight “holy wars”. For most people this controversial religious calling came to the fore after 9/11, 7/7 (the attacks in Britain in July 2005) and the Arab Spring — young, disenfranchised and radical recruits heading from Britain to Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Syria.

    The investigation, which was the basis of a 40-minute BBC Radio 4 documentary, The Dawn of British Jihad, was broadcast on Tuesday night. It revealed that the roots of violent religious struggle by British Muslims were laid in the mid-1990s, much earlier than previously thought.


    The tour of Britain was chronicled in Mujalla Al Dawah, a monthly magazine published by his organization, Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad.

    According to the articles uncovered during the BBC investigation, Hafiz Saeed arrived in Britain on Aug 9, 1995, and set about lecturing the youth about jihad.

    There was silence in Birmingham as he urged his audience to “rise up for jihad” and vilified Hindus.

    That address “in real terms laid the foundation of ... jihad in the UK,” according to the articles.

    In Huddersfield, Saeed said: “In order to defeat infidels, it is our duty to develop all forms of arms and ammunition, including nuclear bomb. That is God’s command. We (LeT) have declared jihad and killing as first condition of our belief.”

    In Leicester on Aug 26, Saeed spoke at a conference attended by 4,000 people. His address “infused a new spirit in the youth. Hundreds of young men expressed intention to get jihad training”.

    Summing up the British tour, the author wrote: “A large number of young people want to get jihad training. A group of around 50 college and varsity students has so far finalised its programme. The valleys of Britain are resounding with chants of jihad. The time is not far off when Muslims will wake up” and the era of the early Muslim invaders of Europe “will come back in the vales of Europe. There will be chants of Allahu Akbar over Alhamra if the spirit of jihad is back among Muslims of Europe.”

    Manwar Ali, a computer science graduate from London who became a jihadist but has now renounced violence, told the BBC he had persuaded Hafiz Saeed to visit Britain to rally support for jihad and raise funds.

    “Whenever Hafiz Saeed would come to Green Lane [Birmingham] or Rochdale, Skipton, Rotherham, Birmingham, Leicester thousands of people would turn up,” Mr Ali told BBC.

    Each trip raised £150,000 or more. Women removed their gold bangles and earrings in response to his call. Hundreds of Britons went to battlefields in the Philippines, Kashmir and Bosnia, with some losing their lives.

    Britain banned LeT in early 2001.

    The militant group was banned by Pakistan in 2002, but shortly before that Hafiz Saeed resigned and formed JuD, which is currently on a watch list but officially not banned. Saeed was confined to his home in Pakistan for several months last year, but has been freed since.

    According to Raffaello Pantucci’s book, We Love Death As You Love Life, LeT has retained a complex network in Britain.

    Omar Khyem from Crawley, ringleader of a five-strong gang jailed in 2004 for plotting to use fertiliser bombs to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London, claimed to have established a camp in Kashmir with LeT.

    Aabid Khan, from Bradford, who was jailed for 12 years for heading a cyber-grooming radicalisation gang, claimed to have links to LeT.

    The United Kingdom is not the only western country visited by Hafiz Saeed during the 1990s. He visited the US in 1994. The Jan 1995 issue of Mujalla Al Dawah published an interview with Hafiz Saeed about his visit to the US. “I was invited by an Islamic organisation called New York Cultural Centre (Al Markaz Al Saqafati New York). It is an organisation of our Salafist brothers and counts a number of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis among its members,” he said in the interview.

    “I was invited on the letterhead of the cultural centre as a professor and there was no mention of any jihadist organisation,” he added.

  7. #202
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,389
    Dawn of British Jihad | BBC4 | Jan 09 2018

    Interesting listen, how the guy who wants to die for Islam transforms into a guy who does not care if he dies to prevent others from doing the same. he mentions one of the guys who started Quiliam

    He doesn't mince his words about Hafeez Saeed though. Very blunt and candid there. He blames his naivety and that of his elders for allowing the likes of Saeed to go around recruiting people in the UK in the mid nineties

    An interesting document from a once upon a time jihadi. The idea was to fight infidels not other muslims which is exactly what happened on missions to Kashmir, Afghanistan & Burma. This is where the turning point occurs

    The part that gets you is how 9/11 changes things

    before 9/11

    This guy and his comrades are in combat fatigues in Heathrow's departure lounge waiting to get on a plane to fight in Kashmir. They return to Heathrow still in fatigues and nobody says anything

    The guy posts vacation shots of himself holding RPG's and Ak-47s in the staff room of BT where he works as a software engineer

    Nobody says anything

    This is the disconnect between the Paks and the world, the Paks want to remain in the pre-9/11 era where anything goes
    Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Jan 18, at 21:10.

  8. #203
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,547
    Name:  ImageoftheDayHeroes050911-thumb-550x363-62061.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  112.0 KB

  9. #204
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Very good, even more reason then to make damn sure the PA never loses a nuke
    I will be very happy if that is not the case. However, I still think they will not lose it, but rather they will use it with active collaboration. Pakmil have been playing both sides, and I'm guessing you read the Pak media religiously. What is your inference? They are obsessed with India and see it as justifying necessity to their survival. This obsession will not die down just because the US ordered them to act against the Haqqanis now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Pakmill will be subordinate before they engage anyone. That will be the cue to the world what to expect.

    My question is why will PA surrender authority to a bunch of extremists if they want to take on the world ?

    Nukes are not military weapons. nukes are political weapons. Whoever has them controls the country

    The military in general does not like nukes. They cost too much and take away scarce resources. The PA is an obvious exception and will not cede political control
    The PA is not taking on the world if a nuke goes off in Mumbai or NY. What retribution, if any, will be considered? Nuking them? And letting millions of refugees to flow inside India? India, itself will not agree to it. I have been thinking about this scenario for sometime now and I see the PA getting away with lies and denails, like they have always done. But this scenario comes when the state is about to collapse, which is when the Colonel said that US will occupy Pak, whether they like it or not. The thing is, I don't like it a bit. Fighting terrorists in rugged mountains of Afghanistan is one thing, fighting a guerilla warfare in densely populated Pak cities is a different matter altogether. Human rights organisations will tear the USGov apart when there are collateral damage and that is bound to be, and I have not even taken into account the casulties of US forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    No it does not but i agree it qualifies as a terrifying story. And that is for the pols of this world who as a collective are risk averse. Deterrence or not.
    Maybe the story about Paks collapse and a loose nuke in NY is too terifying for the politicians to foresee the after-effects. I sometime think this is a nightmarish story, deliberately pushed in the global media by somebody who wants the US to stay engaged in AfPak region and take hit after hit, moan in anger and then continue taking hits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I didn't. Shortly after 9/11 happened i figured the US would never catch OBL
    I didn't too. I thought the ISI would kill and bury Osama when they see that as fit. They have been doing crazy stuffs and getting caught. And then, they deny. That's about it. How do you change that attitude?

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Desperate times need desperate measures.

    If you do not believe in deterrence then anything is possible, carefully examine any narratives and ask yourself whether it passes the deterrence test. The scary stories rarely ever do
    Had US been desperate to win this fight, they would have changed track after the Kunduz airlift. The 13th Dec, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament was 3 weeks after that airlift, and that helped Osama escape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    bingo

    Will you listen to reason ? of course not. Because you are scared.

    Now i can control you : D
    And continue taking hits? How well has this policy worked out for both US and India?

  10. #205
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    And let China gobble up Paks for free?
    Foreign loans contracted by government cross $40b
    So ?

    Point being that outcome is a Pak problem isn't it, not anybody else's problem

    Under what conditions will the Pak mil so readily subordinate to China ?

    Paks going bankrupt is a Pak problem

    Paks losing a nuke is a Pak problem

    Paks promoting & harbouring terrrorists is a Pak problem

    There are consequences otherwise
    Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Jan 18, at 18:01.

  11. #206
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    However, I still think they will not lose it, but rather they will use it with active collaboration.
    My question is how do you guarantee the result ? that the auxilliaries will do as desired and not something else. There is no way.

    Only the military can do it so any attack won't be non state but very state with obvious consequences from the act of war committed.

    You see this in Kargil, where they pretend its irregulars doing the fighting and after refusing to accept their own dead.

    In the first Kashmir war they had irregulars, these idiots once they made advances wanted to secure their booty. What did they do, go back to pakistan with said booty to then return back to the fight. This little window was crucial for us to get in and gain ground. Can't send amateurs to do a pro's job


    Pakmil have been playing both sides, and I'm guessing you read the Pak media religiously. What is your inference? They are obsessed with India and see it as justifying necessity to their survival. This obsession will not die down just because the US ordered them to act against the Haqqanis now.
    It will get worse. Time is on our side. As time goes on their leverage reduces. The world could care less about this tussle they have with us.

    No, I don't follow their media religiously.


    The PA is not taking on the world if a nuke goes off in Mumbai or NY. What retribution, if any, will be considered? Nuking them? And letting millions of refugees to flow inside India? India, itself will not agree to it. I have been thinking about this scenario for sometime now and I see the PA getting away with lies and denails, like they have always done. But this scenario comes when the state is about to collapse, which is when the Colonel said that US will occupy Pak, whether they like it or not. The thing is, I don't like it a bit. Fighting terrorists in rugged mountains of Afghanistan is one thing, fighting a guerilla warfare in densely populated Pak cities is a different matter altogether. Human rights organisations will tear the USGov apart when there are collateral damage and that is bound to be, and I have not even taken into account the casulties of US forces.
    Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria recently and what have these orgs done to tear the USG ?

    it will be easier to nuke India than the US. How does that change our position ?

    Maybe the story about Paks collapse and a loose nuke in NY is too terifying for the politicians to foresee the after-effects. I sometime think this is a nightmarish story, deliberately pushed in the global media by somebody who wants the US to stay engaged in AfPak region and take hit after hit, moan in anger and then continue taking hits.
    Hillary has been peddling that line for some time now. Nuclear terrorism she calls it

    Conventional terrorism operates under a nuclear umbrella. Under what umbrella does nuclear terrorism operate under ? i don't understand

    As i see it you only get one shot and then have to surrender. What good is that

    I didn't too. I thought the ISI would kill and bury Osama when they see that as fit. They have been doing crazy stuffs and getting caught. And then, they deny. That's about it. How do you change that attitude?
    Just figured they would never turn him in. He was a cause celebre. And they didn't until the Americans found him.

    Had US been desperate to win this fight, they would have changed track after the Kunduz airlift. The 13th Dec, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament was 3 weeks after that airlift, and that helped Osama escape.
    They trusted Musharaf at the time


    And continue taking hits? How well has this policy worked out for both US and India?
    I mean the pols don't do anything because they are scared. They have bought the line and this tendency to kick the can down the road and not be the one to bite the bullet. Let the next guy do it or even some other country

    The impression you get is the US is letting the Paks get off light. In a talk once this question was put to the american ambassador, he fired back at us with the same question !!!

    Think about that. We have the biggest grievance with them yet from an american pov we too let the Paks get off light

    See, since the 90s we do not consider Pak terrorism a strategic threat. We treat it as a political issue. If they hit us we can absorb it. Mukherji's line after 2008 is we don't want to internationalise the Kashmir problem. The attacks did stop for a few years while the interlocutors had three years in Kashmir and when nothing came of it then our troops got targeted. The cross border raid is the only thing we've done to show we're not afraid of escalation. That maybe things can change

    When the day comes that we do consider them so and concentrate our comprehensive national power to dealing with the problem up to and including the point we have to emasculate them is when there will be a change.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Jan 18, at 21:28.

  12. #207
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Human rights organisations will tear the USGov apart when there are collateral damage and that is bound to be, and I have not even taken into account the casulties of US forces.
    How many Americans gave two hoots about Afghan collateral damage during our invasion?

  13. #208
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    If you cannot control your nukes (and it's obvious you cannot), we will control them for you (translation: occupation of Pakistan), whether you like it or not.
    Sir, how is this even remotely practical? The Paks will resist any attempts to take their nukes, even if the effort is led by China.

  14. #209
    Patron
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by cataphract View Post
    Sir, how is this even remotely practical? The Paks will resist any attempts to take their nukes, even if the effort is led by China.
    The scenario is what happens after a Pakistani nuke is detonated on US or Chinese soil and then blame it on a rogue officer. At that point, Pakistan has one and only one chance to survive. Surrender ... or see mushroom clouds throughout Pakistan.

  15. #210
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The scenario is what happens after a Pakistani nuke is detonated on US or Chinese soil and then blame it on a rogue officer. At that point, Pakistan has one and only one chance to survive. Surrender ... or see mushroom clouds throughout Pakistan.
    If the "rogue" nuclear attack occurs on Indian soil, do you see China stepping in to defend Pakistan from a retaliatory strike? Either militarily or diplomatically?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oregon Stimulus plan miserable failure
    By highsea in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Mar 10,, 05:13
  2. Afghan and U.S. Officials Plan to Recruit Local Militias
    By 1980s in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Dec 08,, 16:16
  3. Bush's Intelligence Overhaul a `Failure
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02 Feb 07,, 06:20
  4. Reid branded 'an enemy of Islam' during speech
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 Sep 06,, 06:34
  5. 15 year old boy branded by employer
    By platinum786 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 02:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •