Ever bothered to take a look at the sheer size of American nuclear arsenal?
Allow me.
Majority of those warheads are thermonuclear. In fact, reports are surfacing that US have scrapped INF nuclear treaty with Russia and started to expand its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal base.
Emphasis mine. US can bring can end to the entire world as we know, if it wants to. Forget Afghanistan. A small number of thermonuclear weapons are sufficient to wipe Afghanistan clean, but their radiation might creep into neighboring countries (depending upon the flow of winds) and end up killing/ruining the lives of many more.
Now take a step back from nuclear weapons, and take look at what US-led forces can achieve through conventional bombing as well.
[1] This is the city of Raqqa - former stronghold of ISIS in Syria.
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins during clashes with ISIS-affiliates, turning it into a ghost town for a while.
[2] This is the city of Dresden - one of the centers of power of Nazi regime in Germany.
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins with a fleet of long-range bombers, and the sheer scale of devastation rivaled a nuclear strike on a city.
[3] This is the city of Tokyo - capital of the Imperial regime in Japan.
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins with a fleet of long-range bombers, killing thousands in this city alone.
So yes, if the objective is to EXTERMINATE a country, US can it pull it off in a short span - no
ifs and
buts.
---
Now what happened in Afghanistan?
US-led forces decimated the 'original Taliban government' in a span of 2 months tops at the start of the war - thousands of Taliban-affiliates perished during this time, and scores of survivors fled to Pakistan. Mullah Omar fled to his hometown and kept a low profile until his death.
Nevertheless, US is
NOT trying to exterminate Afghanistan or even close - even Bush administration which is credited for decimating the 'original Taliban government' in the first two months of the war,
had no intention to hunt Taliban to extinction. Americans only wanted to get rid of the Al-Qaeda affiliates in the region, and NATO succeeded in this endeavor by 2011, and pulled much of their forces from Afghanistan by 2014.
Taliban remnants regrouped within Afghanistan and Pakistan (Afghan refugee camps
[4]), and SIMPLY WAITED for the bulk of US-led forces to EXIT from Afghanistan; resurgence commenced in 2015.
[4] Take a look:
https://www.unhcr.org/publications/...orth-west-frontier-province-january-2008.html
Now Afghans are busy killing each other as usual, but a small contingent of US-led forces in Afghanistan are preventing the worst from happening. They are
NOT trying to eradicate the resurgent Taliban but rather talking to them, to find a political resolution of the ongoing chapter of violence in Afghanistan, and to EXIT afterwards.
Taliban learned a lesson from their defeat at the hands of Bush administration, and played it smart since.
---
In summation:-
1.
Every conflict is different with
distinct political objectives set for it.
2. US - Pakistan war (God forbid) will be of entirely different character in comparison to what happened in Afghanistan. Would Pakistani nationals (numbering in crores) go to India, China and Iran, and WAIT for the bulk of American troops to be pulled from Pakistan?
BE SENSIBLE.
See above.
Ever bothered to take a look at the sheer size of American nuclear arsenal?
Allow me.
Majority of those warheads are thermonuclear. In fact, reports are surfacing that US have scrapped INF nuclear treaty with Russia and started to expand its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal base.
Emphasis mine. US can bring can end to the entire world as we know, if it wants to. Forget Afghanistan. A small number of thermonuclear weapons are sufficient to wipe Afghanistan clean, but their radiation might creep into neighboring countries (depending upon the flow of winds) and end up killing/ruining the lives of many more.
Now take a step back from nuclear weapons, and take look at what US-led forces can achieve through conventional bombing as well.
[1] This is the city of Raqqa - former stronghold of ISIS in Syria.
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins during clashes with ISIS-affiliates, turning it into a ghost town for a while.
[2] This is the city of Dresden - one of the centers of power of Nazi regime in Germany.
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins with a fleet of long-range bombers, and the sheer scale of devastation rivaled a nuclear strike on a city.
[3] This is the city of Tokyo - capital of the Imperial regime in Japan.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/...-tokyo-ground-level-of-news-footage/538717554
US-led forces blasted this city into ruins with a fleet of long-range bombers, killing thousands in this city alone.
So yes, if the objective is to EXTERMINATE a country, US can it pull it off in a short span - no
ifs and
buts.
---
Now what happened in Afghanistan?
US-led forces decimated the 'original Taliban government' in a span of 2 months tops at the start of the war - thousands of Taliban-affiliates perished during this time, and scores of survivors fled to Pakistan. Mullah Omar fled to his hometown and kept a low profile until his death.
Nevertheless, US is
NOT trying to exterminate Afghanistan or even close - even Bush administration which is credited for decimating the 'original Taliban government' in the first two months of the war,
had no intention to hunt Taliban to extinction. Americans only wanted to get rid of the Al-Qaeda affiliates in the region, and NATO succeeded in this endeavor by 2011, and pulled much of their forces from Afghanistan by 2014.
Taliban remnants regrouped within Afghanistan and Pakistan (Afghan refugee camps
[4]), and SIMPLY WAITED for the bulk of US-led forces to EXIT from Afghanistan; resurgence commenced in 2015.
[4] Take a look:
https://www.unhcr.org/publications/...orth-west-frontier-province-january-2008.html
Now Afghans are busy killing each other as usual, but a small contingent of US-led forces in Afghanistan are preventing the worst from happening. They are
NOT trying to eradicate the resurgent Taliban but rather talking to them, to find a political resolution of the ongoing chapter of violence in Afghanistan, and to EXIT afterwards.
Taliban learned a lesson from their defeat at the hands of Bush administration, and played it smart since.
---
In summation:-
1.
Every conflict is different with
distinct political objectives set for it.
2. US - Pakistan war (God forbid) will be of entirely different character in comparison to what happened in Afghanistan. Would Pakistani nationals (numbering in crores) go to India, China and Iran, and WAIT for the bulk of American troops to be pulled from Pakistan?
BE SENSIBLE.
See above.
Brilliant point.
Logic takes a back seat in these type of discussions sometimes.
Taliban had the luxury to transition from a VISIBLE FORCE to an ELUSIVE FORCE across Afghanistan and Pakistan, regrouped and waited for the bulk of US-led forces to EXIT from Afghanistan in 2014.
A professional army exist to safeguard borders and to fight another professional army (if necessary) - to prevent potential invasions from external entities. When this fails, then asymmetric pressures are applied on foreign occupants until they decide to leave. Even asymmetric pressures can fail sometimes such as in the case of Iraq even though Iraqi insurgents offered much greater level of resistance to US-led forces than Taliban in Afghanistan.
Mixed situation, or difference in level of commitments to a theater.
You know better then him, right?
VISIBLE FORCE, and what US can do about it, is the point. Economy is also a factor, full-scale war is not cheap.
There is a reason why Pervez Musharraf became COAS, and you did not.
A very good ICBM can approach 7 KM/sec mark in speed (MACH 20) during the midcourse phase of its flight but the re-entry vehicle begins to loose its speed during the course of its re-entry into the atmosphere due to the forces of friction.
India does not have any functional ICBM which can approach US mainland, at present.
American GMD network have demonstrated the capability to intercept ICBMs in complex live-fire events FYI.
FTG-15 event on May 30, 2017
FTG-11 event on May 25,
2019
Attacking Russia is not wise anytime soon; Russian nuclear arsenal is vast with a fleet of 300+ ICBMs. US will have to consider preemptive strikes and risk spreading radiation across the globe.
Serbia had a professional military at the time, but NATO ruined it.
This is FALSE information.
True.
Losses can be expected even in a well-planned information.
See my assessment of Hoodbhoy's remark:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-35...af-pervez-hoodboy.613519/page-8#post-11369035
I clearly DISAGREE with his view, and do not believe that F-35 is infallible. It is a machine - a cutting-edge machine - but a machine in the end, and human factor is still there.
However, some of the comments and utter-lack-of-judgement in this thread...
There is no comparison between Su-30 MKI and F-35 variants, period.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-35...af-pervez-hoodboy.613519/page-8#post-11368864
Indians are a bunch of idiots on average, bought into Russian hype. I have had discussions with them about the sheer hype they had created in regards to Su-30 MKI and I reminded that F-16 in PAF's inventory can defeat them in aerial engagements, but they didn't pay much attention.
WE should NOT be like Indians on the other hand - DELUSIONAL to the CORE, or perhaps PDF Indian crowd is like this. Because there are sane Indians out there.
---
OK - nobody said that machines are infallible.
However, take a look at this MONSTER.
50+ sorties over Serbia, and NO LOSS.
In one of the sorties, a B-2 Spirit took out the freaking Chinese embassy in Serbia and got away with it:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-bomber-dropped-weapons-chinese-embassy-52312
In fact, numerous sorties around the world, and NO LOSS.
B-2 Spirit is the best VLO design in existence, it is VLO across
all known BANDS and frequencies. The epitome of human engineering and ingenuity. Only the largely obscure RQ-180 is in this league. And US is now developing relatively superior B-21 Raider.
My point is to not generalize, and not to underestimate.
