That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
As always, the debate shouldn't end up with whether Pakistan has the tech or not, this simple fact is that Pakistan does not need an ICBM.
The US is not a military threat.
Pakistan's problems with the US are diplomatic, and they'll only be fixed through diplomacy. If the US thought military solution was the only real way forward, they'd have tried to invade Pakistan decades ago.
=============
[Edit]: To expand on my comment of why the US isn't a military threat; Pakistan is the US' only ally in South Asia, that's it, there is nothing else to add here. India is not a US ally, Sri Lanka is not a US ally, BD is not, Bhutan is not....etc.
Losing Pakistan means losing the only real influence the US has in the region, and US strategists will not let that happen.
"But," you start, "what about India and the US signing a bunch of deals? What about the whole naval access treaty thingy?"
Good questions, little timmy, but in the end, the first question's answer is simply "business deals". The second questions answers is, "a strategic decision that India would have rather avoided, but had to do, in order to counter China's growing influence in the Indian ocean region".
India is a good business and military customer for now, but the Indian nation's ambitions won't allow itself to align with the US. It will use the US, until it is powerful enough that it will no longer need the US. By that time, India will also become a global rival to the US (and China), and Pakistan will once again come back into focus.
This is why India can never really be a US ally, and why Pakistan will always be in the equations of any future US planning in the region. No one else can fill the shoes that Pakistan fills...
...no one else wants to.
=============
The US is not a military threat.
Pakistan's problems with the US are diplomatic, and they'll only be fixed through diplomacy. If the US thought military solution was the only real way forward, they'd have tried to invade Pakistan decades ago.
=============
[Edit]: To expand on my comment of why the US isn't a military threat; Pakistan is the US' only ally in South Asia, that's it, there is nothing else to add here. India is not a US ally, Sri Lanka is not a US ally, BD is not, Bhutan is not....etc.
Losing Pakistan means losing the only real influence the US has in the region, and US strategists will not let that happen.
"But," you start, "what about India and the US signing a bunch of deals? What about the whole naval access treaty thingy?"
Good questions, little timmy, but in the end, the first question's answer is simply "business deals". The second questions answers is, "a strategic decision that India would have rather avoided, but had to do, in order to counter China's growing influence in the Indian ocean region".
India is a good business and military customer for now, but the Indian nation's ambitions won't allow itself to align with the US. It will use the US, until it is powerful enough that it will no longer need the US. By that time, India will also become a global rival to the US (and China), and Pakistan will once again come back into focus.
This is why India can never really be a US ally, and why Pakistan will always be in the equations of any future US planning in the region. No one else can fill the shoes that Pakistan fills...
...no one else wants to.
=============
Completely agree. In fact, the world is more friendly towards Pakistan right now, than it was just a few years ago. Any war, or military sanctions wouldn't fly, and would have to be done unilaterally by the US.We have no missiles designed to hit anything beyond the threat we face from India, that's a necessary part of our deterrence and all of our focus is dedicated to that end. We have no ICBM, nor do we need one. Especially not for the US.
Yes we have uneasy relations with the US, but we're not enemies. We've never been at war with them and probably never will be. And even if the situation was worse, what would an ICBM change?
The US' greatest offensive tools for jumped-up pipsqueak nations who've acquired nukes isn't war, it's sanctions, economic damage, diplomatic and political damage at every level. They can do us harm without firing a single bullet, what's more, far from an ICBM changing that, it would only add further justification for taking such action against Pakistan. Right now, most of the world is not against us in the way the Trump administration is, what members are asking for would be sure to change that.
North Korea's diplomatic strategy is certainly a bad one for us to follow.
Last edited: