Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?
Roman    2/14/2004 2:27:05 PM
First of all, I should mention that I am not advocating that kind of invasion at all. In fact, I think it would be a horribly bad idea. I am asking because someone on another forum suggested it and I would simply like to clear up whether the U.S. even has the capability to do it. I do not think United States of America does have the capability. Here is my response on that forum: invading Pakistan would be an exceptionally bad move. First of all, Pakistan has nukes which it might well use to defend itself - although the U.S. would undoubtedly try to destroy them (as well as any nuclear facilities) with surprise air strikes in the initial stages of the war. Second, the U.S. would loose Pakistan's cooperation in the War on Terror thus enabling terrorists to regroup. Third, the U.S. does not have the capability to invade Pakistan. The U.S. military is already somewhat strained in Iraq (although troops are ready for another major theatre war in Korea...) so getting enough troops to invade and occupy Pakistan would be impossible. Even assuming the U.S. successfully took care of Pakistan's nukes and other WMD early on, Pakistani conventional military is vastly more powerful than the Iraqi one. On top of that, imagine the guerrilla war that would ensue... Pakistan has 150 million people the vast majority of whom are Sunni and hate the U.S. Compare that to Iraq's 25 million people of which only 20% (5 million) are Sunis that do the fighting. The word 'impossible' to occupy springs to mind... in fact, it would be impossible even if the U.S. did not have 25% of its army entangled in Iraq and did not have to stand by for another major theatre war. In any case, how would even the invasion (not to mention the occupation) of Pakistan proceed? No neighbouring country except perhaps Afghanistan would allow the U.S. to station troops on its soil for the purposes of the invasion - not even India. The U.S. would have to airlift everything to Afghanistan - but how without being allowed to use surrounding airspace? No, an invasion from Afghanistan could at best be an auxiliary, diversionary thrust - the main force would have to come from the sea, as would the majority of aircraft. It would then have to move 2,000 kilometers north through Pakistan to get to Islamabad - the capital. On top of that, large parts of Pakistan are very difficult terrain for armour and mechanized infantry to move through... Again, the word 'impossible' manifests itself prominently in my mind. Basically, the U.S. does not have the capability to even invade, not to mention occupy, Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
Roman    DrCruel   3/16/2004 5:22:53 PM
I agree with your position on occupation, but I think even an invasion would be difficult.
 
Quote    Reply

Pashtun    RE:To Roman   3/19/2004 11:48:52 PM
sorry if i worded it wrong. I know where Slovakia is. Im good with geography but thankx for the other information. It is very good to know that. Now my knowledge of the world is growing faster because of u and this site than Dick Cheney's chances of a 5th heart attack.
 
Quote    Reply

Rubicon    RE:Invasion/occupation of Pakistan   3/20/2004 9:41:21 AM
Pakistan has a well equipped, well trained army, and that's not mentioning tribal warriors. Much of the terrain there is very hospitable to defenders, guerilla warfare. Not to mention, they got Nuclear weapons. Invasion of Pakistan would be a bloodbath. And maintaining a viable occupation force a very cost-prohibitive proposition, in addition to the fact that it will have united all of the muslim world in the Jihad against USS.
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   3/20/2004 10:09:50 AM
As a former United States Navy SEAL, I can say that number 1: why would we (US) invade Pakistan? Number 2: You have no idea what seceret stash of military might we have in the closet in the event that our known amount of forces is stretched thin--like now. I'm not trying to pin you down, but what facts do you have to comment on our capabilities. I had no idea how strong of a force we have behind the curtain until I serverd. After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that you are severly underestimating our capabilities. Wonderful debate, however.
 
Quote    Reply

corrector    RE : SOONER   3/20/2004 2:02:04 PM
Firstly it is hard to believe that you are a USN Seal. Secondly, if you really were a USN seal you would have a really good picture of how badly bent over backwards the US forces are at present. So streached out that they don't even want to mess with N.Korea, instead they have withdrawn a lot of troops from S.Korea due to shortages. I think if the aim was to 'destroy', as in finish all humanity in Pakistan, the aim is achievable. All that is needed is 100 odd nuclear warheads and the job can be done. BUt if you are thinking of invaded Pakistan using "CONVENTIONAL" means, I am sorry, but i don't think that is possible. Let alone occupy it. -corrector
 
Quote    Reply

LogicRules    RE:RE : SOONER   3/20/2004 2:35:07 PM
Why couldn't the US conventionally be able to invade Pakistan? Invasion would be easy-however powerful the PAF might be, the US can bomb, cruise missile, or high altitude bomb the Pakistani air, armor and heavy infantry and navy to submission-However stretched the US ground forces may be, the American Air Force still has many, many main line units open. After this, a land invasion wouldn’t be too hard. HOLDING Pakistani would be hell-and even with a WW2 like buildup, I do not think the US can hold Pakistan- after all the Japanese did eventually surrender- Many millions of hardline Islamic Pakistanis would never do this. And these hardliners would be actively supported by the House of Saud, and even Great Britain wouldn’t the US in there.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    sooner   3/20/2004 3:29:06 PM
"1: why would we (US) invade Pakistan?" Please read my scenario below for an explanation of the HYPOTHETICAL scenario under which the US would decide to invade Pakistan. We all hope, of course, that such a scenario will never come to pass. "Number 2: You have no idea what seceret stash of military might we have in the closet in the event that our known amount of forces is stretched thin--like now. I'm not trying to pin you down, but what facts do you have to comment on our capabilities. I had no idea how strong of a force we have behind the curtain until I serverd. After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that you are severly underestimating our capabilities. Wonderful debate however" If that is the case, why don't you enlighten us? Please tell us (without revealing classified information, of course) what capabilities the US has that we are forgetting? It seems to me that US forces are rather overstretched at the moment - please show me how I am wrong (and I would be happy to be wrong on this one).
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei    A WWII comparison   3/21/2004 1:19:20 AM
HOLDING Pakistani would be hell-and even with a WW2 like buildup, I do not think the US can hold Pakistan- after all the Japanese did eventually surrender- Many millions of hardline Islamic Pakistanis would never do this. And these hardliners would be actively supported by the House of Saud, and even Great Britain wouldn’t the US in there. To conquer Pakistan, the US might have to kill between 3 and 11% of the population. In WWII, 3% and 11% were Japan's and Germany's uncle points respectively. This means between 4.5m and 16.5m people (out of 150m). To hold down US casualties, occupation would have to be a scorched earth exercise, meaning that resistance would have to be met with the destruction of the town. All of Pakistan's textbooks would be revised. Mullahs would be executed en masse and copies of the Koran burnt. There is only one circumstance in which such tactics would become acceptable - a nuclear detonation on American soil resulting in hundreds of thousands of US dead. The Germans thought the US was too humanistic to inflict casualties on them. Anglo-American city bombings killed 2 million German civilians. US bombings killed 500,000 Japanese civilians. Could it happen again? It would depend on the scale of the provocation.
 
Quote    Reply

tank    RE:A WWII comparison   3/21/2004 1:23:46 AM
can someone confirm that we killed 2 million german civilians in world war 2..
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:A WWII comparison - Zhang Fei   3/21/2004 1:31:34 AM
I am not sure whether 3%-11% is the 'magic number' to break the will of the populace of the country concerned. Remember that Germany killed at least 14% (some estimates are significantly higher) of the population of the Soviet Union during WWII, but it still failed to break the will of the massive resistance movements or indeed to conquer and hold the Soviet Union - in fact the USSR emerged from the war as a superpower second only to the USA for the next 40 odd years.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics