US airdrops supplies in east Afghanistan

[Omar1984]

Supplies to NATO will not dry up, as US will find new ways to supply, but the question is: Pakistani route being most economical way for supplies, how long NATO can pay huge cost for other (expensive) routes. . NATO logistic bills will go sky high after a month.

Then the sooner they will leave. Let them use any route, but through Pakistan should be denied to them permanently.

 

[karan.1970]

It is a known fact that the NDN is twice as expensive as the Pakistan route is, & airdrops are even more expensive (with little capacity).

Once you factor in the cost of burnt containers and the under the table money NATO has to pay to warlords in the Balochistan area for allowing the containers to pass, the difference wont be that much..

 

[unicorn]

This is why Pakistan is so important. There is just not one supply line card that Pakistan have.

Clearly Pakistan have out smart out think USA in this long war. Pakistan have literally blasted the USA on diplomatic front as well.Taking into confidence all the major countries in the world including Japan China Russia Iran Turkey Germany Britain France and the Arab world before the Bonn Conference. USA is spell bounded and dumb founded.Their ISAF/NATO generals are already feeling the heat of shortage of supplies in Afghanistan. Clearly the events are illustrating that Pakistan will achieve it's strategic interest one way or the other.

 

[53fd]

Once you factor in the cost of burnt containers and the under the table money NATO has to pay to warlords in the Balochistan area for allowing the containers to pass, the difference wont be that much..

Can you support that claim of yours?

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Whatever, be it good or bad for nato. At least we would be reducing a bullseye from our head for being a pro-US participant in this war.

We must adopt neutrality between this fight between Afghan Taliban and the US and emphasize on battling the Pakistani terrorists.

GOP has agreed with what ever the out put of the conference be they will accept it , in other world they didn't go but accepted the out put (what a joke with the nation)

 

[Awesome]

Once you factor in the cost of burnt containers and the under the table money NATO has to pay to warlords in the Balochistan area for allowing the containers to pass, the difference wont be that much..

Still good for Pakistan as that money won't reach warlords. They can bring us the sun and the moon but we'd still hold to the slogan "Go, America, go away!". They can do whatever they want, but Pak airspace should not be used, they should air drop it from flights from Russia too.

 

[karan.1970]

Can you support that claim of yours?

simple math.. if cost of route a = 2* cost of route b

then

cost of route a < 2*(cost of route b + cost of damaged goods + cost of bribes)

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

simple math.. if cost of route a = 2* cost of route b

then

cost of route a < 2*(cost of route b + cost of damaged goods + cost of bribes)

Cost of bribe == is actually given by logistic companies to Taliban in side Afghanistan for save passage.

If Common Pakistan's were being benefited with the business of WOT ($$$$$) they will love US/NATO but the 1% is filling their pockets with aid so who cares if US uses what ever route.

 

[53fd]

simple math.. if cost of route a = 2* cost of route b

then

cost of route a < 2*(cost of route b + cost of damaged goods + cost of bribes)

Yes, but what % of the truck supplies are burnt up, & how many make it to Afghanistan is a key question.

I think the number of truck supplies that don't make it are significantly less to the ones that do make it.

The Russian route can have the same additional costs as well as it passes through more transits, & there are strongholds of various militant groups in central Asia as well.

Anyways, if Pakistan closed off its airspace, then it'd be an even bigger problem.

 

[53fd]

double post.

 

[karan.1970]

Looks like the bravado about not needing Pakistan supply route is a bluff on the part of the US.

Just like Pakistan's bluff of withdrawing from WoT.. Game of chicken being played...

 

[Awesome]

Just like Pakistan's bluff of withdrawing from WoT.. Game of chicken being played...

What's there to bluff? We want to, we're being forced to stick around. Being the weaker side we have to struggle our way out of it. It's not like we're standing their nonchalant and acting indifferent. So really not the same thing comparing America's bluff and Pakistan's unsuccessful attempts.

 

[53fd]

Just like Pakistan's bluff of withdrawing from WoT.. Game of chicken being played...

What is the WOT? Pakistan has basically played the game of 'damage limitation', & according to the West, has never really played an active (or positive) role in the WOT.

 

[karan.1970]

What is the WOT? Pakistan has basically played the game of 'damage limitation', & according to the West, has never really played an active (or positive) role in the WOT.

supply line...

 

[53fd]

supply line...

In other words, if all the supplies were coming from the NDN & none from Pakistan, then Pakistan wouldn't be in the WOT. Which would be a good thing for Pakistan. Or a bad thing? As I see it, Pakistan wants (& Pakistanis want) to get out of the WOT. Decreasing the US & NATO Forces dependency on Pakistan's supply routes should be a good thing for Pakistan then.