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    RE:A WWII comparison - tank   3/21/2004 1:38:14 AM
tank, there were many more than 2 million German civilians that died in WWII. Zhang Fei is saying that 2 million died in the bombings of cities by the Americans and the Brits. Many more were killed by soldiers on the ground (not too many by allied soldiers, but a lot by Soviet soldiers). The total number of German civilians killed during the war is estimated at 3.81 million.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:A WWII comparison - tank   3/21/2004 1:57:14 AM
I just noticed that I did not really answer your question... My answer is that I can neither confirm nor deny Zhang Fei's figure, because I do not know the distribution of civilian deaths in Germany (or for that matter Japan). However, I know that his figures of 3% of the total population of Japan and 11% of total population of Germany killed in the war are correct by most historians' estimations, so I have no reason to doubt his figures on bombing...
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:RE : SOONER-to corrector   3/21/2004 1:58:59 PM
You worte: "Firstly it is hard to believe that you are a USN Seal." Strong reply. I went through hell just to go through more. If you have doubts of this--fair enough. It is not an issue to me. Moreover, I can't give you little web sites to back up or prove unnamed technology. When I tell you that there are pockets of forces-I don't mean 30,000 marines hiding in a mountain bunker waiting for the opportunity to fight or a secret band of special ops laced with agents. EX. the predator (drone) was released in recent battle for superior surveillance. Did we gather this technology recently. Of course not. How does one stay on top? Technology, software, etc. We have forces of several kinds that have the potential to be destructive and are not spoke of. Can you find this on the web. No. If you can think of it, it has been attempted and completed on some level. I have honored all of your opinions despite their basis. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/21/2004 2:03:36 PM
The truth is we are stretched thin. This is not debatable at any table. Please refer to my post to Corrector when I spoke of technology pockets. There was a time to release the stealth. There was a time to release the drone. There will be more surprises--when the time is right and our defense is at stake.
 
Quote    Reply

Try2BUnbiased    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   3/21/2004 5:10:06 PM
just read the first few posts. too many to read. lol. i won't comment on the biases etc. of many posters, American and Pakistani etc. but the point is that Pak. could definitely be invaded by india . the original poster keeps stressing pak. has a larger pop. so?? in modern day warfare , with the type of weapons and strategy the U.S. uses , numbers just don't count that much. as for nukes , pak. does not have the capability to hit the U.S. remember that. ppl. keep saying how all these countries now can defend themselves with nukes. pak. certainly can't hit europe or the americas and neither can india with it's current missiles, but atleast it can still modifiy one of it's satelite carrying rockets to become an icbm which still probably get shot down when it approaches the U.S. u forget how precision the bombing in iraq was. it wasn't that worse than pak. if it crumbled then so would pak. and if india jumps in. then well bye bye pak. no debate .
 
Quote    Reply

Try2BUnbiased    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   3/21/2004 5:13:51 PM
oops . i meant U.S. not india in my third line. india invading pak. is a whole other discussion
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/22/2004 10:00:57 PM
Well, you may be correct that the US has some classified technologies, but I find it unlikely that these could be decisive in the process of occupation of any country, though I suppose they could be useful for the invasion part. Still, not knowing what these weapons are means we cannot include them in our analysis. Just out of interest - what was your specialty in the SEALs? (I don't actually know almost anything about the SEALs, but I assume they have various specializations.)
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/22/2004 11:43:22 PM
Different teams are trained according to the climate/opposition in which they are on standby to act upon. Its obvious what the underwater demolition teams specialize in. Generally, you train in a multitaskful manner. As for our team, we quickly took the advantage of public relations/training of the Iraqi opposition forces. You would be surprised how equipped and well trained (experienced) fighters these rebels can be. Without these individuals, trust me when I say that our intelligence would be cut in half. I never intended on being a SEAL. I didn't like the fact that my chances of coming back to my family were slim to none. To get back to your comment---I agree. Technology that has never been seen before would make the invasion successful. Occupation--a different game entirely. There are actually different pockets of intelligence that handle each phase of an invasion. Once we get in there, there is no doubt the frustration begins. I don't see, however, why in the world we would even consider invading Pakistan. They are our strongest non-NATO ally. I think that you have very valid points about this particular issue. It is clear that you are well informed. Being a SEAL isn't something great. If your mission goes bad, which it often does, there is very little that can be done to assist. We were there 1 month before the war began inside Iraq. We were gone 1 week after the invasion.
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/23/2004 12:00:20 AM
I wasn't boasting about what I am. I just wanted to explain why I believe what I believe. I think that the PR scene in Pakistan would be a great task. Much harder than in Iraq. Communications is the biggest tool of battle. I might add that technology has been used to disable this tool. We have advanced jamming devices that centcom has in its back pocket. To my knowledge, they were not used in Iraq or Afghanistan. (it wasn't necessary) I have honored all of your opinions. Mine don't have to be. I wanted to open your mind to the idea of what our government holds. The stealth bomber was assembled in the 50's. It wasn't seen until the 80's. Where was it at all of those years in between? I sure don't know but there are those who do. I appreciate your comments.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/23/2004 2:42:59 AM
sooner, I was not suggesting you were boasting in any way. It is relevant to state who you are when you chime in to a debate about military matters. I often do the same when the debate centers on my areas of 'expertise' (if you can call it that in my case - I am still a student).
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics