Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pakistan doesn't have many friends. The Indians and the Saudis hate them and I doubt the Russians care.

CT GAMER wrote:I'm far from a warhawk, in fact I think I am one of the liberal hippies that keep getting mentioned, but OBL was to important a target to take a chance with...

We're 4 on the floor with this. I've never understood the sentiment that OBL just wasn't that important. The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.

Ouze wrote:The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.

Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
Some evidence and eye-witness testimony points to the possability that he was intentionally killed by US forces to make him into a war hero to build support for the war.

The subsequent investigation was a giant cover-up and snow job from the bottom all the way up to the president...

I sincerely doubt it was intentional, as the standard argument against conspiracies applies (too many people knowing too many potentially valuable facts).

I wouldn't doubt, however, that certain mistakes may have been made, and then subsequently glossed over. And that's not even really a dig on the military, most organizations with a solid sense of esprit de corps will take liberties in how they investigate and punish their members, especially in terms of public visibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Nominally, Osama Bin Laden was only the figure head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri has been the real leader for a long time, but he needed Bin Laden alive to hold the organization together. With BL dead, Al Qaeda has pretty much collapsed in on itself and fractured.

He was also a major fundraiser, given both his background and notoriety.

A joke, Lux! A joke, 'twas it.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

I haven't actually said anything on the main topic, but when it comes down to it they're in the right. The US is violating Pakistani sovereignty.

Now, this got me thinking. Can Pakistan really claim sovereignty? I mean, they have a difficult time managing the areas that the government actually controls, which doesn't even take into account the large tracts of virtually lawless areas.

Man, my old International Relations teacher would have had a field day with this.

Of course Pakistan can claim sovereignty. It's an internationally recognized government, weather they can actually control thier country means very little in the world of "international community." they can go whine to the UN and the UN can pass a non binding resolution in GA, 5 years from then they can scream about thier sovereignty while the UN and the "community" pressure the US, China, or whoever else will be the preeminent power to bomb the gak out of them. However much you and the UN want to hold hands and sing songs about love and piece; a claim of sovereignty is a waste of air, time, and any medium it's printed or accessed on. The only thing that matters is the will and power to enforce it. You can talk all you want about culture and civilization, when it all boils down might makes right.

dogma wrote:Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.

Because the war on terror is only somewhat about protecting people from future attacks. It is very much about proving who controls the situation, and if a public face like Osama is still alive and free years after an attack on the scale of 9/11, that makes it look like the US really, really isn't control of things.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.

Because the war on terror is only somewhat about protecting people from future attacks. It is very much about proving who controls the situation, and if a public face like Osama is still alive and free years after an attack on the scale of 9/11, that makes it look like the US really, really isn't control of things.

Yes, I always felt it was a message of "you won't get away with attacking the US"...however 10 years after the fact, that message seems a little muted

infinite_array wrote:A joke, Lux! A joke, 'twas it.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

I haven't actually said anything on the main topic, but when it comes down to it they're in the right. The US is violating Pakistani sovereignty.

Now, this got me thinking. Can Pakistan really claim sovereignty? I mean, they have a difficult time managing the areas that the government actually controls, which doesn't even take into account the large tracts of virtually lawless areas.

Man, my old International Relations teacher would have had a field day with this.

Apologies. I did get the feeling it was a joke when you mentioned giant sling-shots... But there has been a superiority complex thing going on here about US capabilities and I wanted to point out it was a bit silly

It's been just under a year since I last did Int. Relations, but as far as I'm aware then Pakistan fits the criteria for sovereignty. If we're going on the control thing, then while they might not have day to day control, with a concerted they can impose it over a given area. And they have internationally recognised borders (which the US keeps ignoring...).

As somebody mentioned earlier the Pakistani government is in a difficult place. They've got a faction that supports militant extremism on one side, with its rather problematic (for the West) beliefs, exacerbated by heavy-handed US strategy, and they've got a side which wants US/Western support, specifically aid money. Which way do they swing? They can go with the militant extremism and all the associated beliefs but then pee the US off or they can go with US aid support and lose popular support, and also suffer the consequences from the militant extremists, which will probably be massive civil unrest.

At the moment they're obviously trying to stay in the middle, but honestly I think if they're forced to choose a side they'll go with the militant extremism.
The West has just fought two wars in that area of the world (still fighting one as well) and is suffering from massive financial problems. Attacking Pakistan would be massively unpopular and very expensive and would receive little international support, and of course the militants can just up-sticks and move to the next country with a grudge against the West (of which there are many of course).

Pakistan can claim its sovereignty is being violated, and they can be absolutely right about it. That would matter a lot more if international law wasn't, when it comes right down to it, more reminiscent of the way prison works than anything else. If you can't defend yourself and you don't have one of the powerful gangs on your side, chances are pretty good that nobody's going to step in when you get jumped in the shower room.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.

And what will you do if they launch nukes back?

Castiel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.

And what will you do if the launch nukes back?

Nuke them first.

Frazzled wrote:

Castiel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.

And what will you do if the launch nukes back?

Nuke them first.

Doesn't stop them firing theirs to get revenge though.

It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.

Frazzled wrote:It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.

You're trying to suggest Pakistan won't know you've launche nukes at them?

I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature American flags, and John Mellencamp will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.

GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!

Castiel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.

You're trying to suggest Pakistan won't know you've launche nukes at them?

Yep.

I should posit, you started this conversation, not I. I am not advocating anything but the greater glory of Weinerdogdom and Queso (is there a connection?). Its just my natyre to note the options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.

GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!

Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.

From wiki:

Second strike capabilityAccording to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[59]

It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.[60]

Second strike. Learn it, live it, love it!

Castiel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.

If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.

Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.

And what will you do if they launch nukes back?

They'll fall a little short.

True. I think the longest range missile is 2500KM. More of an anti-India deterrent.

Edit: the Ghauri-II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghauri_missile

Easy E wrote:From wiki:

Second strike capabilityAccording to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[59]

It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.[60]

Second strike. Learn it, live it, love it!

Sorry, they have the range to make it to the United States? Also, Railguns and X ray lasers picking wobbly rubber band spun rockets off at leisure.
THAAD. Making better worlds.

Couldn't find a map with the 2500km range

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.

GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!

Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.

Ah, you're right. I'll go watch True Grit as penance, pilgrim.

daedalus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.

GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!

Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.

Ah, you're right. I'll go watch True Grit as penance, pilgrim.

now there you go.

AustonT wrote:

Castiel wrote:
And what will you do if they launch nukes back?

They'll fall a little short.

This. The concern isn't that we hit Pakistan and they nuke us in retaliation; the concern is we hit Pakistan and they nuke India in retaliation. Of course, the real concern is that Pakistan's horrifyingly atrocious nuclear weapon security lets some Jihad-lovin' folks walk off with a couple dozen warheads.

Castiel wrote:
You're trying to suggest Pakistan won't know you've launched nukes at them?

Depends on how they're delivered. Hell, apparently we could use helicopters to drop them off by hand.

I don't think America would launch nukes first, makes us look bad for doing so.

Yeah, especially over drones violating the air space of one of our "allies".

Sounds a bit like overkill to me too. But, when you've got a nuke, every problem starts to look like a target. Right?

Easy E wrote:Yeah, especially over drones violating the air space of one of our "allies".

Sounds a bit like overkill to me too. But, when you've got a nuke, every problem starts to look like a target. Right?

WWVD?


(What Would Vader Do?)

Easy E wrote:Yeah, especially over drones violating the air space of one of our "allies".

Sounds a bit like overkill to me too. But, when you've got a nuke, every problem starts to look like a target. Right?

Brinkmanship and Mutual Destruction come to mind. Here's a fun fact, if Russia had launched nukes the entire East coast would be gone.