General Beg demands right for PAF to shoot down ISAF copters, drones

[Hulk]

Ending drone operations in Pakistan - shutting down intelligence cooperation, sealing off Pakistani bases, and shooting down drones flown from outside Pakistan, is in fact Pakistan's largest leverage over the US IMO.

NATO's mandate ends at the Afghan-Pakistan border. Legally Pakistan would be justified in shooting down any NATO AC/soldier that enters its borders without permission. NATO cannot argue self-defence either since Pakistan has offered to coordinate operations with NATO on its side, as much as resources permit. Any thing beyond our resources, NATO has to provide Pakistan with if it wants that degree of cooperation.

And there is no way NATO will receive a UN mandate for cross-border operations into Pakistan.

Agno it is not the question of right or wrong. US and NATO does not need to be on right side. If you do that and become hostile. This will follow in return.
(Note:- This is just my speculation, please do not treat it as my wish. It has happened in past people failed to understand this)

US will declare that Pakistan is sheltering terorrist and hence they are now right in attacking any terrorist target.

Now lets say they attack some targets within Pakistan, what will you do?

Try to attack them, in that case they will first take down your air defence.

Waiting for your response before going further.

 

[Hulk]

u know they did the same to Afghanistan and gues what even without nukes Nato is pissed off real hard... 40 Nation Army fallen to Taliban .. luckily, THEY DIDN'T HAD NUKES... !!!

Sorry dude, you think Agtan is winning, serious. Taliban attacking time and again does not mean they are winning. Plus it is different fighting a nation than fighting goans like Taliban. Can your army officers live like Taliban in caves?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno it is not the question of right or wrong. US and NATO does not need to be on right side. If you do that and become hostile. This will follow in return.
(Note:- This is just my speculation, please do not treat it as my wish. It has happened in past people failed to understand this)

US will declare that Pakistan is sheltering terorrist and hence they are now right in attacking any terrorist target.

Now lets say they attack some targets within Pakistan, what will you do?

Try to attack them, in that case they will first take down your air defence.

Waiting for your response before going further.

It is a question of right and wrong and legal justification. Even with the Iraq war the US was at pains to paint is as legally justified given the various UN resolutions the US argued Saddam was in violation of.

And no country in the world, not even the UK, is going to be interested in starting another war in Pakistan - people still have not forgiven the US for starting the war in Iraq. So what recourse is there for the US? Drones are not piloted, so in terms of escalation no US lives will be directly endangered if they are shot down. They are basically unmanned reconnaissance tools, and multiple nations across the world have shot down drones from other nations.

Assuming Pakistan ends all cooperation with the US on drone strikes (shooting down drones will only occur if the US ignores specific Pakistani instructions to not conduct drones strikes on Pakistani territory any more) how will attacking the Pakistani military make things any easier for the US? If one thing is obvious by now, the PA is not going to allow its 'red lines' to be crossed.

Quite frankly it will never come to shooting down drones, because once Pakistan makes clear that drones in Pakistani territory are not allowed, the US won't fly them given the repercussions.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Sorry dude, you think Agtan is winning, serious. Taliban attacking time and again does not mean they are winning. Plus it is different fighting a nation than fighting goans like Taliban. Can your army officers live like Taliban in caves?

think hard whose wining whose loosing, Taliban have nothing to loose ,whereas Nato has alot to loose.

 

[Hulk]

It is a question of right and wrong and legal justification. Even with the Iraq war the US was at pains to paint is as legally justified given the various UN resolutions the US argued Saddam was in violation of.

And no country in the world, not even the UK, is going to be interested in starting another war in Pakistan - people still have not forgiven the US for starting the war in Iraq. So what recourse is there for the US? Drones are not piloted, so in terms of escalation no US lives will be directly endangered if they are shot down. They are basically unmanned reconnaissance tools, and multiple nations across the world have shot down drones from other nations.

Assuming Pakistan ends all cooperation with the US on drone strikes (shooting down drones will only occur if the US ignores specific Pakistani instructions to not conduct drones strikes on Pakistani territory any more) how will attacking the Pakistani military make things any easier for the US? If one thing is obvious by now, the PA is not going to allow its 'red lines' to be crossed.

Quite frankly it will never come to shooting down drones, because once Pakistan makes clear that drones in Pakistani territory are not allowed, the US won't fly them given the repercussions.

Agno I disagree when people compare Iraq with Pakistan. Understand the goal was different in both cases.
In Iraq they wanted to get Saddam, which could not have been achieved without capturing it.

As per Pakistan, their goal is not to capture, their goal is to hit AT.

Now as far as Pakistan is allowing it to happen fine, once they say no. US will blame them of protecting terrorist.

Now on that lines they will do *limited/targetted attack*, this is not same as war. They will just find target and attack it. Now let's say Pakistan attacks back, then what? In that case they will just blow your air defence (which they can do) and they continue with attack.

Understand Pakistan is in no position to look like protecting terrorist and if they do than trust me, everyone will back USA.

As it is a whole bunch of people believes that Pakistan is protecting AT and saying no will just clear all doubts.

 

[JonAsad]

Now on that lines they will do *limited/targetted attack*, this is not same as war. They will just find target and attack it. Now let's say Pakistan attacks back, then what? In that case they will just blow your air defence (which they can do) and they continue with attack.

man this is not Ace Combat.. blowing our air defence will be an act of war on Pakistan.

Bolded Parts: How can they just blow Pakistan's air defences and get away with it?

They are leaving afghanistan and yet you are saying that they will start a new war with nuclear armed country Pakistan?

They did not or let me say cannot even attack North Korea just because it was feared that NK has Nuclear Weapons.
Iran is the Biggest pain in their A$$.. They are putting sanctions on them.
Yet you are saying regarding a confirmed nuclear armed nation Pakistan the US will confront and attack..

How easy are you taking the whole scenario... Amazing

In that case they will just blow your air defence (which they can do) and they continue with attack

Lol.. you really wish that happens.. dont you?

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Agno I disagree when people compare Iraq with Pakistan. Understand the goal was different in both cases.
In Iraq they wanted to get Saddam, which could not have been achieved without capturing it.

As per Pakistan, their goal is not to capture, their goal is to hit AT.

Now as far as Pakistan is allowing it to happen fine, once they say no. US will blame them of protecting terrorist.

Now on that lines they will do *limited/targetted attack*, this is not same as war. They will just find target and attack it. Now let's say Pakistan attacks back, then what? In that case they will just blow your air defence (which they can do) and they continue with attack.

Understand Pakistan is in no position to look like protecting terrorist and if they do than trust me, everyone will back USA.

As it is a whole bunch of people believes that Pakistan is protecting AT and saying no will just clear all doubts.

ur whole argument is defunct, u know how much money US has poured into Pakistan tracking right from its independace in 1945. We have a history of working things out together , further there aint going to be a chance that US would seriously consider of blowing up its entire investement just by scapegoating Pakistan . It may label us as it wishes but does that changes the realities on ground?? NO.

 

[VCheng]

.....

They are basically unmanned reconnaissance tools, and multiple nations across the world have shot down drones from other nations.

........

In addition to the reconnaissance drones, there are several varieties of heavily armed hunter-killer drones in the region, and some of them can take down just about anything we can throw at them. A few of them do not fly from Pakistan, but come from elsewhere, and to stop those would be very difficult indeed.

(Some publicly known examples are the Predator/Reaper/Mariner family of UAVs.)