U.S. Set to Stop Military Aid to Pakistan

Originally posted by 90gsx
I thought we are supposed to stay on the topic of the thread and to only post if we have something useful to contribute

WE are.And it's easier to know what that topic is if you do more than just post a link and three or four of your own words.

reply to post by 90gsx




We hide and give away our freedoms because of the boogie man while all the time giving money to the real enemy. It is time to wake America. Pakistan is not our friend and never has been. NO MORE MONEY

About flippin' time.

My view? Stop the cash to our enemies. Get out of Iraq - time for them to stand or fall. Get out of Afghanistan - 156+ years and nothing has changed with their tribal society, and it's not going to change now. Plow all the savings into, for lack of a better phrase, a "Manhattan Project" to get the US energy independent. Stop pandering, and DO.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
It's about time.

Now, they need to be treated like the enemy state they are.

Destroy their nukes and related facilities now, you'll have to sooner or later.

You want nuclear war? Your town needs to be the first one to get targeted. Are you willing to risk nuclear war? They are not an enemy state. Who said they are enemy state? You know how many terrorists and criminals are in the USA?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Sure, lets leave this one to bite us in the ass, and mark my word, it will if we do.

I hate war of any kind, but when there is a threat like this, leaving it like that is just plain stupid.

The Pakistanis have more than proven that they can't be trusted, and there is a very real possibility that their nuclear weapons and/or materials could fall into the hands of the enemies seeking our destruction, and/or that they could be used as a "proxy" to attack us by an even larger enemy.

But, if everyone is okay with leaving things just as they are, I'm good with that too.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


How is there a threat? How has the Pakistani government threatened the USA? Have they made an official statement of attacking the USA?

You want nuclear war? Your town needs to be the first one to get targeted. Are you willing to risk nuclear war? They are not an enemy state. Who said they are enemy state? You know how many terrorists and criminals are in the USA?

What rock are you living under? In every thread where Pakistan and it's tiny little collection of a few low yield nuclear weapons is mentioned you bring up unsupported conjecture of a full scale nuclear exchange. Who is this so called full scale nuclear exchange supposed to happen between? Who is supposed to be nuking the U.S? You obviously fail to grasp the element of the nuclear wargame, it's politics and strategies between nuclear armed nations. I can tell you obviously never grew up during the Cold War, if you did then you really need to do some reading about nuclear strategy.

During the breakdown of diplomatic relations between countries as tensions rise, nuclear stakes turn towards self preservation and the need to weigh the benefits of supporting a country like Pakistan in an escalating nuclear scenerio. You are in for a big suprise if you actually think for one second China or Russia would even consider defending Pakistan with nuclear weapons. China is not going to scarifice Beijing for some dump like Islamabad and Russia sure the heck isn't about to scarifice Moscow for that cesspool either. Can you grasp this?

reply to post by Jocko Flocko

China is not going to scarifice Beijing for some dump like Islamabad and Russia sure the heck isn't about to scarifice Moscow for that cesspool either. Can you grasp this?

Why would china be sacrificed unless it was a full blown nuclear war which will not happen. China would go to war against the US for its own interests; namely its naval base in Pakistan if it was threatened, and its mining operations.

If a nuclear war were to erupt which is highly unlikely even Washington DC would be lights out. The ruling elite in the USA dont want that. If there is a war, it will be a conventional war via proxy with Pakistan.

Also don't assume. You have no idea about what I know or when I grew up. Just because you saw the news or read some news articles does not make you a military expert or strategist. The USA is having trouble in Afghanistan; a country which was already at war with a previous world power and yet 200 US troops died this year.

Again, you dodged the main question as usual.

Who is supposed to be nuking the United States based on your initial post regarding a supposed nuclear attack on U.S. cities in response to the U.S. taking out Pakistans handful of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon sites?

China? Russia? Pakistan?

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


It would be pakistan nuking in retalitation. It would be snuck into the USA. Not to mention if they are unable to sneak into the USA. ALL US bases in the middle east would be nuked. The entire US forces would be wiped out if they are unable to retaliate the mainland. For this reason the USA will not try to do anything to the Pakistan nuclear weapons.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I could see one being snuck into the U.S. as being an actual plausible scenerio, however this idea that a country like Pakistan with it's very crude delivery system could quote "wipe out all the U.S. bases and troops in the middle east" is none factual. Pakistan has a very poor delivery system, they are unable to launch what are called "missile salvo's" because they just don't have enough warheads to do so and don't yet posess a vast coordination system; the warheads they do have are a very low yield and therefore their delivery system would have to be perfected which it isn't, it's highly innacurate and their long range missile systems are quite unreliable.

Pakistan would be literally wiped off the face of the planet in about 15 minutes should Pakistan launch any kind of ballistic missile at any U.S. targets. The reason for this is that Pakistan also do not have the means to get their missiles in the air fast enough to create ANY kind of sneak attack, thier systems are very crude and sub par when compared to U.S. based systems and technologies. You are vastly over estimating Pakistan's capabilities and really should read up on their current systems.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


Even if they are crude, lets say 50 percent accuracy. Would the US risk losing 50% of all overseas soldiers at a war that it starts? If the USA is the instigator then we should accept our losses and move on.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


The U.S. has the means and the technology to destroy them before they are even used, hence the reasoning behind the need to take them out before they are fired. Granted, they might not get all of them, but they would get the ones that are "launch ready", or "full of fuel". Others might be stored in bunkers and might not get hit, however those require fueling, somehting that can be seen via spy satellites.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


The US has all sorts of means. Just as they did in afghanistan, yet we are still losing the battle there. In iraq we won, but in afghan we are losing. Pakistan would be like afghan again and who knows how many nukes they have hidden. You can't take em all out. Lot of them would be decoy dummies for the US to waste its missiles on. The real ones would be hidden. In the end again would losing 50% of all US troops in the middle east worth it? We cannot count on the US to be able to neutralise the paki nukes; at least not all of them. What if they have nukes hidden near the chinese base? What if the chinese mistake a launch towards them and retaliate? The situation is more complex than the US being able to take out all nukes. That requires having people on the ground and knowing where all nukes are and being able to destroy them all. Even if one was destroyed, that would be the signal to launch all the rest. Not to mention they may be expanding their arsenal.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Lot of them would be decoy dummies for the US to waste its missiles on.

Again, it's very hard to debate you when you keep throwing out none factual information all the time. Have you read anything about Pakistan and it's weapon capabilities? The days of dummy missiles are gone as real missiles require massive amounts of fuel to fly as well as preperation. This is easily detectable with satellites and with a country like Pakistan I can guarnantee you that the U.S. knows where each missile is that is capable of being launched within 30 minutes.

The real ones would be hidden.

Incorrect. The real ones require some type of fueling and launch system be it underground or above ground. All of these launch areas are known about, just as the soviets knew about America's ICBM launch sites and vice versa. See the above post about reading up on Pakistan's missile capabilities.

In the end again would losing 50% of all US troops in the middle east worth it?

Again, you keep throwing out random numbers regarding a scenerio that you have not researched. Even if Pakistan managed to get a few out of the ground after a major first strike by the U.S., ABM systems that are being developed would have a very high probability of knocking them out of the sky. Your 50% scenerio is mere conjecture and is not factual based.

What if they have nukes hidden near the chinese base? What if the chinese mistake a launch towards them and retaliate?

This is the scenerio I spoke of earlier yet you still don't grasp it. The Chinese would not break the MAD situation between the U.S. and mainland China, even though it is very slanted towards the U.S. winning a full exchange scenerio. The Chinese WILL NOT sacrifice it's cities and people to save a country like Pakistan, it's just not worth it to them. Again the guessing that Pakistan might hide missiles close to the Chinese base is something that the Chinese would not allow, they are far to strategically minded to allow such a risk.

The situation is more complex than the US being able to take out all nukes. That requires having people on the ground and knowing where all nukes are and being able to destroy them all.

With a country like Pakistan and it's instability and terrorist links, I can guarantee you that knowing where all those missiles are is a primary mission of the intelligence community. It would be a horrible mistake if it wasn't a primary mission. You can be almost assured that the U.S. has PLENTY of intelliegence on the ground inside Pakistan keeping and eye on those warheads.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko

Again, it's very hard to debate you when you keep throwing out none factual information all the time. Have you read anything about Pakistan and it's weapon capabilities? The days of dummy missiles are gone as real missiles require massive amounts of fuel to fly as well as preperation. This is easily detectable with satellites and with a country like Pakistan I can guarnantee you that the U.S. knows where each missile is that is capable of being launched within 30 minutes.

I have studied the missile defense system for over 10 years now. The tests a lot of them have a tracking device and are only intercepted because they are in mid course phase. Boost and terminal phases we cannot even begin to talk about. Not only that the launch is predetermined and known, and the warhead has not separated from the missile. Missile defense is a failure. Not to mention how will the ABM system be able to distinguish a nuclear missile from a decoy missile? The ABL is the only thing that may be able to destroy an ICBM in boost phase but it is only in the testing phase.

Incorrect. The real ones require some type of fueling and launch system be it underground or above ground. All of these launch areas are known about, just as the soviets knew about America's ICBM launch sites and vice versa. See the above post about reading up on Pakistan's missile capabilities.

Real ones can also be solid fueled and mobile. Solid fuel rockets do not require a massive fueling logistics.

ABM systems that are being developed would have a very high probability of knocking them out of the sky

Once again these ABM systems only work the midcourse; and as such still have limited capability.

Not to mention China does support Pakistan:

www.dawn.com...

BEIJING: China pledged its support for close ally Pakistan on Tuesday, after the United States announced it would suspend $800 million worth of security aid to Islamabad.

This coming right after the US held 800 million USD in funding.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Not to mention China does support Pakistan:

www.dawn.com...

BEIJING: China pledged its support for close ally Pakistan on Tuesday, after the United States announced it would suspend $800 million worth of security aid to Islamabad.

This coming right after the US held 800 million USD in funding.

***Thats awfully nice of the chinese.Since ther're feeling generous they can pick up the other 2/3s!!Lord i hate politics...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Jocko Flocko

 

The US has all sorts of means. Just as they did in afghanistan, yet we are still losing the battle there. In iraq we won, but in afghan we are losing.

In what way did the US 'win" in Iraq? Certainly not militarily. Although Halliburton and XE are certainly doing well with it.

When thinking about modern military 'conflicts' like Iraq and Afganistan, you have to look at the money trail, not the win/loss chart. By 'dithering' in Afghanistan for almost a decade, the Bush Admin was able to stretch out the US time there, ensuring long-term profits for all the contractors, drug traffickers, arms dealers, etc. A quick, decisive 'win' is in no one's interests ( except the civilians and soldiers actually dying). That is why we are still in Afghanistan, and why Iraq occurred in the first place.

reply to post by AgentX09


This means that pakistan and China have formed an alliance and this means if the USA attacks Pakistan, it is lights out for all US bases in the middle east.