US violates int’l laws; moves USS Enterprise into Pakistani water.

[VelocuR]

*
RaptorRx

Now that depends on your perspective. Could it be that LeGenD is advancing Pakistan interest? Could it be that he thinks we need to focus on our real enemy India and help our Kashmir brethren instead of getting involved in a no win self destructive tangle with a superpwer? Thereby is it possible he is a real patriot because he want's the best for Pakistan.

How is having a Abram as a avatar wrong? Maybe he thinks it is a great tank? I see lots of avaatar's that use Us built F-16s so what is the problem here?

My views almost mirrors LeGenD's, are you questioning my patriotism? Instead of questioning a man's patriotism why not instead give a reasoned riposte.

Read my post #367 which gives some reasons why I oppose any tangle with US.

I would refer you to read more on our members AgnosticMuslim or Asim, they have a valid counter arguments. This LeGend kept comparing Iraq to Pakistan which is wasting of times.

Not that I am saying Pakistan should fight with superpower. Welcome to the PDF, hope you come frequently and learn more different perspectives.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
Mav3rick

"English language has deep roots in our culture mostly because we are still fresh from occupation by the British and because of influence of Britain and US on all our foreign policies. It can be phased out if necessary".

Which is exactly what I had said but you stated English was merely a 'international language' which is also true but in Pakistan it is that and more. I did say we have over '150' years of relationship with the Anglo-Saxon world. That started in 1839 when British came to our region all the way to 1947 when they left and our contradictory although at times symbiotic relationship with US post 1947.

Deliberating upon your example of Germany & occupation of South East Asia by the British, I wondered whether you realized that the Brits were welcomed here as traders and not as invaders until they had setup deep roots and bought whomever they could not defeat in battle.


Yes, I am painfully aware. The substance of what I said still stands, that is they enslaved everybody from Peshawar to Chittagong, from Srinagar to Colombo in South Asia. All your doing is qualifying my statement with a addendum - That they proved to be smart and us to be dumb. Wishing that they [British] had been dumber than us does not change the fact that Union Jack fluttered over Lahore, Peshawar or Karachi for almost a century.

You may consider India weak but India has always been stronger.....even at the time of partition, Pakistan was deprived of her rights to division of Military and Military assets. We had no real Military at the time of independence.


No, I don't. India is a god damn giant to the Pakistani dwarf. My characterization of India as a 'poverty swamp' was in referance to and relative to, others in the same league like China, USA or Russia.Yes Pakistan was denied her share of the assets. However are you aware that possibly third of the British Indian Army was recruited from areas that formed Pakistan. Our area had been favoured disproportionately. So situation was bad but not as bad as would appear to be.

This also exposes another side of US that has been conveniently forgotten by many people, including you. Pakistan was weak state in 1947. How is that we survived Indian hostility? Of course unless you assume denial of our assets was symptom of indian goodwill towards us.

The other side is that after Pakistani leadership in late 1940s and 1950s realizing how weak we were towards the huge elephant next to us and actively sought US help to ballast our position. We got it when we signed to be part of the US chainlink against the Soviets. That led to the entire rebuilding of Pakistan Army and almost ground zero up building up of Pakistan Air Force. So much so that by 1960s Pakistan was cocky enough [as you accept ] to launch a full scale war on 'peace loving' India.

Almost all contonments built post British were built in 1950s-60s by actual American Corp of Engineers. Roads, Airline, Army Navy, Airforce, industry, financing in the Ayub era was gratis American taxpayer.

Most of the hydroelectricy generated in 2012 [ made all the more critical since the frequent loadsheding these days ] is thanks to Warsak, Tarbela, Mangla Dams etc all built in the Ayub era while dining on the US banquet.

Again contrary to your assertion of a neutral India all Pakistani Punjab rivers, thanks largely because of the Indian domination of most of Jammu & Kashmir were subject to being diverted thus turning Pakistan into another barren Sahara with mass starvation as the only item on the menu.

It was World Bank [under US auspices ] that brokered the still in force Indus Waters Treaty. Massive hydraulic engineering works were required to shift the river flow of the two western rivers [ Indus and Jhelum ] to offset the Indian diverstion of Ravi, Chenab and Sutlej. India used that shifted water to green up the Thar Desert via the Indira Gandhi Canal. As a reverse of greening of Indian Thar Desert Pakistan Punjab would have gone bone dry brown.

Pakistan would struggle to pay for this today so how did it manage pull this miracle in 1960s? Well massive US funding paid for this. There might have been no Pakistan today was it not for USA, conversly the US might have still been facing the Soviets which it is not thanks to our help in the Afghan Jihad. So we have had at times a positive symbiotic relationship although gone sour of late.


There is also a big difference b/w engagements with India and the US whereby it has always been Pakistan that initiated wars with India whereas the US threatens us.


You bet there is. So are you suggesting that India never threatened Pakistan? I and many Pakistani's will beg to differ with you on this. If I was of a paranoid disposition I might be tempted to think your a Indian. India was hostile and a threat to Pakistan from whence even before Pakistan's existance - You said as much by saying Pakistan was 'deprived of assets' by India in 1947.

The father's of India were against even the idea of Pakistan, India represented the only existential threat to Pakistan in 1947 and in 2012 India still is the only extential threat to Pakistan. Despite all that posturing at no stage do I think there is any chance of a war with US unless we do something crazy or we end up with a dangerous windbag like Saddam. In which case we will join Iraq and Mullah Omar in doing a Muslim version of 'Hara Kiri'.


If you consider defence of loss or life and property by an external force translates to advancing Pakistans interest then by all means keep defending. We just have very different views of 'advancing' Pakistans interest.


In real life nothing is black and white. You have to arrive at least worse option, more so if your a weak Third World country prone to fissiparous tendancies. You would probably have to contend with lot worse if you decide to tangle with a superpower when you have struggled to cope with B rate power like india. To draw the boxing analogy again if I can't beat a guy in middle weight most sane people would advise me to avoid tangling with heavy weight.



By the way, we have lots of F-16's, they form the backbone of our Air Force hence I do not see any harm in having an F-16 as an avatar. An M1 on the other hand, well you know where I want to go with that, right?

Fact: Both are American, true we don't have Abrams. Could it be he respects the Abrams as a ultimate tank? Desert Fox uses Rommel as his avatar. I am sure that having a Wehrmacht General as a avatar is not validation of the Nazi's although as we are aware Field marshall Rommel did serve Nazi Germany.

I imagine he might respect Rommel as a military genius - Ditto possibly LeGend and M1 Abrams. It would be very presumptuousto to make conclusions from a just a avatar. At any rate I doubt he think's US is Pakistan's enemy no. 1 like you do.

**
It is entirely wrong to compare Pakistan with China as much if not more than compare Pakistan with India - A point made by you in a prior post. I shall reserve my thoughts about China for another time.

 

[Mav3rick]

My friend, did you know that you could use the option 'Reply with Quote' and make answering a lot simpler?

Which is exactly what I had said but you stated English was merely a 'international language' which is also true but in Pakistan it is that and more. I did say we have over '150' years of relationship with the Anglo-Saxon world. That started in 1839 when British came to our region all the way to 1947 when they left and our contradictory although at times symbiotic relationship with US post 1947.

You had posted that the use of English language on this forum was testament to our age old relation with the British. I merely said that we use English here because English is the international language and that this is an international forum.

Yes, I am painfully aware. The substance of what I said still stands, that is they enslaved everybody from Peshawar to Chittagong, from Srinagar to Colombo in South Asia. All your doing is qualifying my statement with a addendum - That they proved to be smart and us to be dumb. Wishing that they [British] had been dumber than us does not change the fact that Union Jack fluttered over Lahore, Peshawar or Karachi for almost a century.

I believe your intention was to establish a comparison b/w the resolve of the Germans and that of Indians, where the former had prepared and intended war and the later trade. Not very good comparison.

No, I don't. India is a god damn giant to the Pakistani dwarf. My characterization of India as a 'poverty swamp' was in referance to and relative to, others in the same league like China, USA or Russia.Yes Pakistan was denied her share of the assets. However are you aware that possibly third of the British Indian Army was recruited from areas that formed Pakistan. Our area had been favoured disproportionately. So situation was bad but not as bad as would appear to be.

Understood. But that brings me to another debate, was India able to invade Pakistan? Even though they have favourable circumstances such as close proximity, a much larger and better equipped military, a lot more resources etc.? What makes you think anybody else can?

This also exposes another side of US that has been conveniently forgotten by many people, including you. Pakistan was weak state in 1947. How is that we survived Indian hostility? Of course unless you assume denial of our assets was symptom of indian goodwill towards us.

The other side is that after Pakistani leadership in late 1940s and 1950s realizing how weak we were towards the huge elephant next to us and actively sought US help to ballast our position. We got it when we signed to be part of the US chainlink against the Soviets. That led to the entire rebuilding of Pakistan Army and almost ground zero up building up of Pakistan Air Force. So much so that by 1960s Pakistan was cocky enough [as you accept ] to launch a full scale war on 'peace loving' India.

Almost all contonments built post British were built in 1950s-60s by actual American Corp of Engineers. Roads, Airline, Army Navy, Airforce, industry, financing in the Ayub era was gratis American taxpayer.

Most of the hydroelectricy generated in 2012 [ made all the more critical since the frequent loadsheding these days ] is thanks to Warsak, Tarbela, Mangla Dams etc all built in the Ayub era while dining on the US banquet.

Again contrary to your assertion of a neutral India all Pakistani Punjab rivers, thanks largely because of the Indian domination of most of Jammu & Kashmir were subject to being diverted thus turning Pakistan into another barren Sahara with mass starvation as the only item on the menu.

It was World Bank [under US auspices ] that brokered the still in force Indus Waters Treaty. Massive hydraulic engineering works were required to shift the river flow of the two western rivers [ Indus and Jhelum ] to offset the Indian diverstion of Ravi, Chenab and Sutlej. India used that shifted water to green up the Thar Desert via the Indira Gandhi Canal. As a reverse of greening of Indian Thar Desert Pakistan Punjab would have gone bone dry brown.

Pakistan would struggle to pay for this today so how did it manage pull this miracle in 1960s? Well massive US funding paid for this. There might have been no Pakistan today was it not for USA, conversly the US might have still been facing the Soviets which it is not thanks to our help in the Afghan Jihad. So we have had at times a positive symbiotic relationship although gone sour of late.

The US has not done anything for which it has not taken undue advantage from us. US Government is not a charitable organization, neither are they saints.....They are businessmen and they heavily weigh their investments against profits. I have nothing more to comment on this.

You bet there is. So are you suggesting that India never threatened Pakistan? I and many Pakistani's will beg to differ with you on this. If I was of a paranoid disposition I might be tempted to think your a Indian. India was hostile and a threat to Pakistan from whence even before Pakistan's existance - You said as much by saying Pakistan was 'deprived of assets' by India in 1947.

The father's of India were against even the idea of Pakistan, India represented the only existential threat to Pakistan in 1947 and in 2012 India still is the only extential threat to Pakistan. Despite all that posturing at no stage do I think there is any chance of a war with US unless we do something crazy or we end up with a dangerous windbag like Saddam. In which case we will join Iraq and Mullah Omar in doing a Muslim version of 'Hara Kiri'.

Well, India may have threatened us on many occasions but their threats have turned out to be more bark then bite, always, well atleast militarily anyway. But that does not change the fact that we initiated all the wars with India.

In real life nothing is black and white. You have to arrive at least worse option, more so if your a weak Third World country prone to fissiparous tendancies. You would probably have to contend with lot worse if you decide to tangle with a superpower when you have struggled to cope with B rate power like india. To draw the boxing analogy again if I can't beat a guy in middle weight most sane people would advise me to avoid tangling with heavy weight.

Well, let me put it this way, if my existence is threatened then I will fight even Mike Tyson. When the adversary is so much stronger, we may have to fight dirty. Besides, do you know how heavy an invading force will have to be for Pakistan? It is just not feasible.

Fact: Both are American, true we don't have Abrams. Could it be he respects the Abrams as a ultimate tank? Desert Fox uses Rommel as his avatar. I am sure that having a Wehrmacht General as a avatar is not validation of the Nazi's although as we are aware Field marshall Rommel did serve Nazi Germany.

I imagine he might respect Rommel as a military genius - Ditto possibly LeGend and M1 Abrams. It would be very presumptuousto to make conclusions from a just a avatar. At any rate I doubt he think's US is Pakistan's enemy no. 1 like you do.

**
It is entirely wrong to compare Pakistan with China as much if not more than compare Pakistan with India - A point made by you in a prior post. I shall reserve my thoughts about China for another time.

Useless argument, I don't care what people use as their avatars, I was just giving you the justification one might use for using an F-16 as opposed to an M1.

 

[fatman17]

US Carrier Strike Groups

■The USS Abraham Lincoln CSG with CVW 2 embarked is under way in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR) conducting missions supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.
■The USS Enterprise CSG with CVW 1 embarked is under way in the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR conducting missions supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts

 

[LeGenD]

Special note for member Atanz; I salute your maturity level.

----------------------

It seems in the most of your posts are fully defend USA against Pakistan in your logical sense, correct? would you consider to apply blue passport?

I am not defending USA. Where have I, show me?

I am a realist. I am not in to fantasy.

If Pakistan is wrong; I say Pakistan is wrong. If US is wrong; I say US is wrong. Simple.

Strange, you hardly discuss Pakistan internal matters. US topic is only your favourite discussion?

I actually do. It is just that you (yourself) pay more attention to debates involving US.

Even your avatar show Abram tank,wtf.

My avatar is my personal matter.

Yes, but the length is making these posts rather unattractive.

I do not expect these debates to be brief due to explanations involved.

Strictly speaking of Drone strikes, I am quite confident that they are allowed by the GoP, otherwise the US would not be carrying them out. Besides, most of the drone strikes are killing innocent civilians instead of Haqqanis so nobody really cares in the Government of Military.

Bro, this is why I abhor deception. Current leadership (Military and Civilian) have kept people in the dark on lot of matters. This is not good. People just do not know the facts and continue to speculate.

Regarding civilian casualties; they do occur unfortunately but it is unwise to assume that mostly they die. Civilians are not the target of the drones; terrorists are who are hiding in civilian dominated areas.

And yes, I agree the CIA is involved in covert operations in Pakistan especially against our Nuclear assets. I remember the Mariott Blast, which exposed the operations of Black Water in Pakistan as they were the target. But by not deporting those that are caught with illegal weapons in tinted vehicles with illegal license plates, illegal/forged documents and in disguises is clear proof that our Military/Agencies and Government does not have a will to stop them.

Then you have noticed some signs too? Good

If you are speaking of the choices presented to us post 9/11, the super power was prepared to exact an exemplary revenge against an imaginary threat for the benefit of her citizens. We did not really have any other option, besides our own existence was not directly under threat if we complied.

So you acknowledge this as well? Good

But when our own existence, when our own interests are threatened then we have to rethink the commitments.....from both sides.

This is where the confusion lay. What are our interests in Afghanistan? We want Afghan Taliban back in power? Do you think that this will be easy after all the investment US have made in Afghanistan thus far? What about the Afghans who do not wish Afghan Taliban back in power?

Our policy should be to convince/coerce Afghan Taliban to reach a settlement with the current Afghan government because like it or not - this Afghan government does have worldwide recognition. As long as the Haqqani offshoot of Afghan Taliban will continue to target US interests in Afghanistan and use Pakistani regions for its interests, we cannot expect peace to prevail and our relationship with US to normalize.

We have an obligation to stay committed to the decision that our former leadership took after 9/11. Keep in mind that after this decision US was not expecting Pakistan to support any faction of Taliban (Pakistani and Afghani). If Pakistani interests do no co-align with those of US, then this should have been conveyed to US when presented with the choice in the first place. Clearly Musharraf thought differently then our current leadership (Military in particular).

Commitment is commitment. Deal is a deal. Remember Sulah hudaibiya? Holy Prophet (PBUH) upheld the commitment to its fullest.

When you will not upheld a commitment, clearly their will be consequences.

ISI created Talibaan, if anybody doubts that he/she is in denial.

This is a myth.

Read this excellent report: An Introduction of the Taliban

But it does not mean we control them, we are allies of sorts whereby they do not hit our interests and we don't hit theirs. And it does not matter in how many groups they break, Talibaan are still the main force and are led by Mullah Omer.

So you realize that we do not control them. Good.

Now explain to me that how 'this lack of control' serves Pakistani interests? What the hell Pakistan is doing in WOT then? Do you realize the mess we have created with this duplicity?

This shows our lack of resolve to work with International Community on the Afghan issue. This is why we are facing the backlash. Does our current leadership (Military and Civilian) realizes that our Afghan policy will redefine our future course of relationship with lot of countries who have participated in WOT?

Have we forgotten that under the rule of Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan became a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide and it culminated in to 9/11. Now you will say that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Please don't.

Pakistani interests will be better served with strong relationship with lot of countries involved in WOT.

Now, when I speak of Talibaan I am referring to Mullah Omer's factions and Haqqanis and their allies, basically anybody who is accepted by Mullah Omer as a friendly combatant. When you speak of Talibaan, you also include TTP and other anti Pakistan elements who have never been accepted by Mullah Omer as part of the Taliban. We can more forward more intelligently if we make this clear.

And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?

TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.

Read about TTP here: http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/ttp.html

Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.

I am sure Talibaan would not have banned polio vaccines, and if they did then they must have given a good reason for it. Perhaps the vaccination comes with foul play whereby the original vaccine is replaced by something that is eventually harmful for the kids?

Oh yes! Afghan Taliban makes the wisest of the decisions. And my Pakistani brethren blindly fall for them.

should we care if they are buying it or not? Have they not cost us a loss of almost US$ 80 Billion directly and probably a loss of US$ 20 Billion (loss of Rs. 18,000 Crore due to corruption and bad governance) indirectly for supporting the election of this corrupt Government? Let them compensate us, treat us as allies are treated and then we can provide the protection that they need by bringing the Haqqanis to the discussions that the Americans are desperate for.

I do not trust these figures. Our current leadership (Civilian in particular), which is corrupt to the core, have the habit of putting the blame of its mismanagement and shortcomings on others.

US have given lot of aid to Pakistan during WOT; 18 billion USD in total. Musharraf was good at bargaining with others. Our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not unfortunately.

Pakistan also have not managed to develop a powerful lobby in US for its benefit since independence. The end result is that US does not understands Pakistani needs properly. On the other hand, both India and Israel maintain strong lobbies in US and this benefits them.

Yes, I acknowledge that Pakistan have paid a high price in WOT. But the threat of militancy had to be kept in check. Otherwise, it would have turned in to a Frankenstein Monster for us.

However, lack of clarity over policy for WOT and Afghanistan (in our part) have resulted in current mess.

The US needs to realize that we cannot abandon Haqqanis or Mullah Omer, we have invested too much in to them. The best we can do is perhaps persuade them to ceasefire with NATO forces and to give NATO a window of safe withdrawal if the US is willing to cede to their legitimate demands.

Bro, this is the bone of contention between US and Pakistan. Mullah Omar is not yet in the position to dictate his terms to US. Where is his government?

And we should persuade Mullah Omar to work with the International Community, if we do not wish to target his forces and allies. This is the least we should do.

Also, Taliban holds no power over ISAF in military context. ISAF have demonstrated the capability to increase its strength in Afghanistan on its own terms. And it will withdraw from Afghanistan on its own terms. Mark my words.

No, he wasn't.....otherwise he would not have invaded Kuwait.

US conveyed to him that he should withdraw from Kuwait. Saddam did not listened. US then gave him a deadline. Saddam did not listened. Get the memo?

When Israel took out the Iraqi Nuclear Reactors and halted the Iraqi Nuclear program, they invited a full scale invasion. Any reasonably strong country would not have hesitated a moment in doing that. However, what was Iraq's response? What was the response of this supposedly mighty military power? Does it not speak wonders of the capability of Iraqi Military?

Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. Iraq was a mediocre military power back then.

However, during Persian Gulf War 1991, Iraq fired 39 Ballistic Missiles in to Israel to make a statement.

Well......in Iraq, the US was fighting a large military after all but in Afghanistan the US was fighting a small militia. Despite the huge difference in manpower in the Iraqi military and Afghan militia the stats of KIA enemy combatants is not that big, the ratio should have been 1:10 or better but it is more like 1:2 with the recent years being harder on the US military and allies in Afghanistan then the earlier ones.

Afghan war offers different kind of challenges. Their is no uniformed military group to be targeted. Afghan Taliban can easily blend with civilians and have support from Pashtun populace. In addition, Afghan Taliban enjoys Pakistani support. This further complicates the situation. And Afghan territory favors guerilla warfare. Furthermore, US have not deployed massive firepower in Afghanistan due to its geography. If Afghanistan had been connected with the ocean, then situation would have been different.

Furthermore, coercion with threats takes one only as far, now coercion with $$$ would make wonders happen for the US. Treat us with respect that we deserve, repay us for the losses we have incurred including similar payments to the wounded and dead that the US pays for her own soldiers and see the shift in attitude.

You expect US to do everything for Pakistan in the light of the duplicity of its foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan? You sure are deluded, Sir.

Or how weak the Iraqi Air Force was. They did not have access to the comparable R-77 BVR while the Iranians had access to AIM-54. Also, weapons get potent all the time, across the board. The US does not hold exclusive licenses to weapons and their potency. I am trying to establish the fact that Iraqi's never really had it in to them to fight.

Iraqi Airforce was not weak. It was equipped with latest French and Soviet Jets of that time. And many nations did not had BVR capabilities during 1990s. Pakistan have also acquired this capability recently (after 2001).

And you are wrong if you think that Iraqi Airforce was inept. It is just that US approach to air combat had significantly changed after Vietnam. USAF evolved in to a force capable of striking with precision and avoid harm.

Ofcourse not, but we have access to their state of the art weaponry. All I state is that we have the ability to hit back, before going out. If going out is our fate, lets go out with a fight.

Saddam had the capability to hit back too during early 1990s. His forces downed some Coalition Aircraft and fired 90 Ballistic Missiles during Persian Gulf War 1991. Some of these missiles were aimed at Coalition military bases and they did hit them. Saddam even attempted to break the coalition by targeting Israel.

The US definitely has superb jamming and eavesdropping capabilities, no doubts there. But what is to say we do not have the same in Chinese equipment? As jamming techniques evolve, so do anti jamming and anti jamming jamming and so on.

You need to establish this then.

Because Operation Neptune Spear showed otherwise. Now even if you argue that our defensive network is stronger on the Indian front, their are many loopholes in our defensive capabilities that US can easily exploit.

I can't post the same answer again and again, for this look at my original answer.

I have. Your point is baseless.

Correct. All weapons systems require continuous evolution. But as anti weapon systems are advanced so are the weapons they are supposed to stop. When faced with each other, somethings gotta give and no system would be 100% fool proof. Barrages of missiles with MIRV's and decoys are no joke.

And US defensive network is no joke either.

If launchers are deployed in this fashion:

- Their is little hope. That is 48 interceptors in one place.

Also, US is working on the capability to distinguish between a decoy and the real target.

It is stupid to target strongly defended regions. It makes sense to target the weakest links in a battle. Surely you are not a strategist.

Pakistan follows 'minimum credible deterrence' doctrine due to its limited resources. Pakistan will have limited options in a conflict with a much greater military power. Pakistan will be forced to calculate its options very very carefully.

When an adversary attacks US even for defence, it will examine all the possibilities and all protections. Only then will attempts be made.

And US never does its homework?

Every nation does its homework.

It is you my friend who needs to have a closer look at THAAD and PAC systems. The US military purchased the S-300 system after continuous failure of PAC to study S-300 for development of PAC. THAAD has not had the level of success that was expected of it neither has the PAC system.
Their success rates are highly controversial and debated.

This shows how much clueless you are.

US acquired S-300 system in 2004 from Croatia. By this time, US had already developed PAC-3 and used it in combat.

And I asked you to do some digging on THAAD. I did not asked for your generalization about it.

Read about THAAD here; Lockheed Martin · THAAD

THAAD is one of the most advanced, successful, and potent AM system in existence. It is a masterpiece of evolution of AM capability of US.

On the contrary, if Pakistan destroys the Air Bases and Sea Bases where these jets take off from, then what shock and what awe?

Yes. IF!

You need independent analysis of the rules of Saddam and Qadhafi to even begin to debate on the topic with me!

My point is about competency in foreign affairs. Of course, both of these men were capable military commanders. However, they sucked at foreign affairs just like Kayani does.

 

[VCheng]

............
And US never does its homework?

Every nation does its homework.................

What homework? USA owns the educational institution and not only holds the classes, but also sets the assignments, in addition to holding its own "training & development" seminars for all faculty.

 

[Arsalan]

And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?

TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.

Read about TTP here: http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/ttp.html

Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.

i haven't heard much from Afghan Taliban in support or even in recognition of TTP
the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda as far as i know, are always very vocal about there target and achievements. that is not only true for with-in afghan activities but all there international activities and also those that were carried by there proxies or supporting groups worldwide. however i find it a bit strange that nothing much have ever been said by the Afghan Taliban in support of TTP or any of there activity/target etc!

Can you kindly guide me to some links where the Afghan Taliban, there representatives have openly supported TTP or any act of theirs?

also take some time and search TTP and INdia, TTP and CIA and you might find some intresting links!

regards!

 

[Banglar Lathial]

The biggest danger is some kind of American operation to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. China would advise Pakistan to move major military assets away from the coastline further inland and give Pakistan advanced SAMs for protection. The biggest problem right now is transporting heavy military equipment to Pakistan because it needs to go through the indian ocean, which is controlled by USA. As of February 2012, the two nations are still "working on it."

Pakistan, China working on road, rail connectivity | The Nation

Once the inland areas are secure from air strikes, then China would give Pakistan more C-803 missiles fired from shores by trucks, and UAVs for locating maritime targets.

Right now Pakistan is pushing to become full member in the SCO but Russia it seems want india to join too if Pakistan joins.

How about converting some civilian planes to transport aircrafts to transport heavy weapons to Pakistan? I am certain China is capable of developing/producing enough civilian airplanes if it needs. China and Pakistan share a common border, I think, so it should not be much of a problem to transport heavy weapons to Pakistan. USA transported over 22,000 tonnes to so called 'Israel' in weapons during 1973 October War on short notice, where the distance between so called 'Israel' and USA was probably some 8 or 10 thousand kilometres.

It would be great if Pakistan obtained DF-21D or similar systems and some/many battalions of DF-41 ICBMs, perhaps.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Once KKH is up and running again, China can start sending mobile SAMs like HQ-16 and coastal ASM like C-803 to Pakistan.

What about the option of 'strategic airlift'?

The superpower would need to penetrate a hornet's nest of HQ-16 SAMs How many B-2s and F-22s are you willing to sacrifice?

They only operate some 20 or so B-2s, each costing some 1 billion of their currency. Any 'total war' against United States should also include the option of sending their paper/fiat currency into the archives of history as worthless trinket from today's so called 'reserve currency'.

That's sad. You sound like somebody without any pride. Pakistan stood up to the bully by cutting off the Afghanistan supply route and now the bully is in great pain (and so are you )! That's why USA is lashing out at Pakistan.

Stand strong, Pakistan, and keep squeezing those testicles until USA squeals!

Agreed bro.

Look at this American psycho talking trash about killing Muslims defending their country. I've always said China needs to give suitcase sized nukes to jihadi forces to execute covert missions against capital cities of Western countries. One suitcase nuke explosion in NYC and one in Tel Aviv will show them there is a price for their globe trotting adventures.

I agree totally, if the Muslims had been united, or if a more assertive Chinese leadership than Hu Jintao, for example, had been in place during the last decade, maybe millions of Americans in mainland USA would have felt some 'heat' unlike today where most of them in the mainland are untouched by their criminalities and wars.

 

[Mav3rick]

I do not expect these debates to be brief due to explanations involved.

Ah...well, if it must be done

Bro, this is why I abhor deception. Current leadership (Military and Civilian) have kept people in the dark on lot of matters. This is not good. People just do not know the facts and continue to speculate.

Regarding civilian casualties; they do occur unfortunately but it is unwise to assume that mostly they die. Civilians are not the target of the drones; terrorists are who are hiding in civilian dominated areas.

It's a good thing we have established that the drone strikes are being carried out with the blessings of GoP and PakMil. Having said that and despite agreement with you on Government's double standards and deception, I have to say that there are matters of National Security that just cannot be revealed to the public. However, drone strikes and agreements with the US are not matters that should be kept private especially since they are creating hatred and animosity against the US.

And I have deep reservations on the criteria which determines a person to be a militant by the US. That is why I believe they require ground level assistance from PakMil, if not already covertly provided. Every single Man/Woman/Child that they have executed through drone strikes are labelled extremists or terrorists, this is not fair.

This is where the confusion lay. What are our interests in Afghanistan? We want Afghan Taliban back in power? Do you think that this will be easy after all the investment US have made in Afghanistan thus far? What about the Afghans who do not wish Afghan Taliban back in power?

Our policy should be to convince/coerce Afghan Taliban to reach a settlement with the current Afghan government because like it or not - this Afghan government does have worldwide recognition. As long as the Haqqani offshoot of Afghan Taliban will continue to target US interests in Afghanistan and use Pakistani regions for its interests, we cannot expect peace to prevail and our relationship with US to normalize.

Too many 'what's' and 'ifs' in 2 paras. Starting from the beginning, our interest in Afghanistan in the late 60's and early 70's was strategic depth to shelter us from any possible invasion by the super power next door. Also, since the early days, we have been in competition with Iran & India for influence over our neighbours to ensure that their country is not used for anti Pakistan missions or activities such as which are currently prevalent in BLA & TTP. We were quite successful in our endeavours externally (not speaking on the influx and consequences in uncontrolled and unchecked temporary migration of refugees as that is beyond the scope of this discussion) as recently as 2001. After 2001, we were not given ample time to convince the Talibaan to hand over OBL to the US without any proof of his involvement in 9/11.

The US will not lay waste her investment in Afghanistan, but neither would we. We quite literally understand the dilemma of the super power but she also needs to understand our insistence on being the bigger stake holder. And apparently, majority of the Afghans still support Talibaan, otherwise they would be very hard pressed to find recruits ever ready to fill their ranks and fallen comrades. I am sure if we are given our due share, we would be able to convince Mullah Omer and Haqqanis to settle the issues with the US Government.

As long as the US Government fail to realize our legitimate concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan and involvement of external agencies operating from within Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, there can be no viable solution. The solution has to ensure both aggrieved are reasonable redressed, Pakistan even more so because we cannot just pack away and leave like the US can and did last time.

We have an obligation to stay committed to the decision that our former leadership took after 9/11. Keep in mind that after this decision US was not expecting Pakistan to support any faction of Taliban (Pakistani and Afghani). If Pakistani interests do no co-align with those of US, then this should have been conveyed to US when presented with the choice in the first place. Clearly Musharraf thought differently then our current leadership (Military in particular).

The understanding that was reached with the US post 9/11 is still not very public. How do we know that we committed to work even against those Talibaan that we actually considered our strategic depth? Or perhaps Musharraf & Co. realized that it was futile to reason with the super power as she had already decided on the course of action and that with passage of time, Pakistan would be able to reason with the ally. Maybe Musharraf had no other option but to buy time for the sake of Pakistan?

Commitment is commitment. Deal is a deal. Remember Sulah hudaibiya? Holy Prophet (PBUH) upheld the commitment to its fullest.

Do you know the beauty of Sulah-e-Hudabiya? I believe that it was a written agreement and not a verbal one. Islam strongly encourages documentation of all commitments. As otherwise, different parties would eventually deduce different meaning from the commitments for their individual advantages. In the case of Pak-US commitment, nothing was documented so everything is hearsay, more or less.

When you will not upheld a commitment, clearly their will be consequences.

Consequences will effect both sides, it is not a one way street. When advantages were/are shared by all sides, so will be the losses.

This is a myth.

Read this excellent report: An Introduction of the Taliban

Ok, well....you have your POV on the matter, I have mine. I still say Talibaan were nothing without PakMil. They may have initiated as a group but ISI made them what they became and it was because of support by PakMil that they achieved what they did.

So you realize that we do not control them. Good.

Now explain to me that how 'this lack of control' serves Pakistani interests? What the hell Pakistan is doing in WOT then? Do you realize the mess we have created with this duplicity?

This shows our lack of resolve to work with International Community on the Afghan issue. This is why we are facing the backlash. Does our current leadership (Military and Civilian) realizes that our Afghan policy will redefine our future course of relationship with lot of countries who have participated in WOT?

Have we forgotten that under the rule of Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan became a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide and it culminated in to 9/11. Now you will say that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Please don't.

Pakistani interests will be better served with strong relationship with lot of countries involved in WOT.

Yes, to start off, I would say that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise such as attack was just not possible. All the signs are there for those who want to understand the truth.

To understand how 'lack of control' serves any country, consider the example of China, do we control them? Do we influence their foreign policy? Yet the relationship with them still serves Pakistan. Similarly despite lack of control, the relation is beneficial for Pakistan even if all they do is ensure that agencies such as RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB etc. are unable to indulge in anti Pakistan activities.

A stable Afghanistan will ensure the no terrorism is planned on their soil but it will take time and it will take the will of Afghans, eventually, to elect the correct leadership.

And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?

TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.

Read about TTP here: http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/ttp.html

Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.

Please dude, read up what Mullah Omer as said about TTP, read up how he has denounced the organization. Do not engage me in debates to which clear answers are available. TTP are not linked to Talibaan, they are terrorists being trained, equipped and financed by RAW/CIA.

Oh yes! Afghan Taliban makes the wisest of the decisions. And my Pakistani brethren blindly fall for them.

You have to understand that most of them are not very west friendly, most of them are not educated in the western system and they are highly suspicious of the activities of the west as they have been bitten time and again by the west. It is our duty to persuade them and to tell them where they are making mistakes as polio vaccine is an absolute must and so are the other vaccinations and stuff.

I do not trust these figures. Our current leadership (Civilian in particular), which is corrupt to the core, have the habit of putting the blame of its mismanagement and shortcomings on others.

US have given lot of aid to Pakistan during WOT; 18 billion USD in total. Musharraf was good at bargaining with others. Our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not unfortunately.

Pakistan also have not managed to develop a powerful lobby in US for its benefit since independence. The end result is that US does not understands Pakistani needs properly. On the other hand, both India and Israel maintain strong lobbies in US and this benefits them.

Yes, I acknowledge that Pakistan have paid a high price in WOT. But the threat of militancy had to be kept in check. Otherwise, it would have turned in to a Frankenstein Monster for us.

However, lack of clarity over policy for WOT and Afghanistan (in our part) have resulted in current mess.

1) The figures of losses of US$ 80 Billion which includes wear & tear of transport network, foreign investment, tourism, mobilization and activity by PakMil, armaments & military equipment used, wear & tear to the military equipment, loss of life, loss of assets and revenue due to terror war etc., has been compiled by the Finance Ministry with the help of Defence Ministry/Foreign Ministry etc. The figures may have been estimated on occasions but they cannot be off the mark by much.

2) Of the 18 Billion that the US states it has provided to GoP, 46% is deducted as overheads....GoP has been provided only around 50-55% of that alleged 18 Billion in 'aid' which is roughly equal to US$ 10 Billion. Furthermore, most of the 'aid' has actually been reimbursements for the cost incurred by the Military on this US terror war. Do not be fooled by the propaganda this easily my friend.

3) You think Pakistan does not have a strong lobby in Washington, I would slightly amend it and say that the nexus of anti Pakistan lobbies in Washington especially that of India & Israel far outweigh our strong lobby in Washington and thus we are unable to convince them on many matters.

4) How did the 'supposed' threat of militancy harm us prior to 9/11? How were these so called militants (I would encourage the word freedom fighter for the Talibaan fighting invading forces as opposed to terrorists/extremists or militants who are involved in terrorism in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?

Bro, this is the bone of contention between US and Pakistan. Mullah Omar is not yet in the position to dictate his terms to US. Where is his government?

And we should persuade Mullah Omar to work with the International Community, if we do not wish to target his forces and allies. This is the least we should do.

Also, Taliban holds no power over ISAF in military context. ISAF have demonstrated the capability to increase its strength in Afghanistan on its own terms. And it will withdraw from Afghanistan on its own terms. Mark my words.

Had Mullah Omer's Talibaan been weak, the US would not have initiated a process of negotiations with them nor would it have exerted so much pressure on Pakistan to begin a war with the Haqqanis. This is the reason of contention I agree, but we do not want to engage 50k Talibaan fighters that we consider our asset, plain and simple.

The US thought that they could simply hold negotiations without Pakistan in Qatar, where did they get with that attempt? Without Mullah Omer and Haqqanis, there is not Talibaan and so without them there is no negotiations. The US Govt. has also vocally accepted pressurizing Pakistan to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table. However, Pakistan has declined the unreasonable demands as Pakistan has been consistently undermined in the whole process while at the same time the US attempts to give India a much bigger and undeserved role in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to take it all sitting down?

I have marked your words and now you mark mine, Soviet Union left Afghanistan upon Talibaan's terms and so will this super power!

US conveyed to him that he should withdraw from Kuwait. Saddam did not listened. US then gave him a deadline. Saddam did not listened. Get the memo?

Ok so there are only 3 possibilities here:

1 - Saddam considered US threats to be bluff
2 - Saddam thought he was strong enough to fight of the US & NATO.
3 - Saddam was actually in cahoots with US, and his actions gave them the opportunity to establish permanent Military bases and presence in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait.

One can simply write off atleast point number 2, point no. 1 has some merit but it is actually point no. 3 that holds the most substance.

Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. Iraq was a mediocre military power back then.

And it remained so after too.

However, during Persian Gulf War 1991, Iraq fired 39 Ballistic Missiles in to Israel to make a statement.

None of which hit any of the desired targets even though the Scuds were considered pretty good. They were intentionally fired into uninhibited deserts of Israel. Again, doesn't this arouse suspicion? There was hardly any loss from all the scuds that Iraq fired into Israel, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait combined.

I would also like to know the progress of Iraqi Military from 1981 to 1991 as you believe they achieved excellence from mediocre capability during that term.

Afghan war offers different kind of challenges. Their is no uniformed military group to be targeted. Afghan Taliban can easily blend with civilians and have support from Pashtun populace. In addition, Afghan Taliban enjoys Pakistani support. This further complicates the situation. And Afghan territory favors guerilla warfare. Furthermore, US have not deployed massive firepower in Afghanistan due to its geography. If Afghanistan had been connected with the ocean, then situation would have been different.

Look mate, America did whatever it could do conventionally but was not able to defeat the Talibaan. But for the purpose of argument here, by you reasoning Iraqi military should have resisted the invasion a lot more....albeit their shortcoming as per my conclusion in equipment, training and most probably dedication and patriotism.

You expect US to do everything for Pakistan in the light of the duplicity of its foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan? You sure are deluded, Sir.

No my friend, I do not want the US to do everything but I want them to acknowledge everything and to stop the smearing campaign that they have unleashed against Pakistan PakMil and ISI. Furthermore, I want them to reimburse the losses we have sustained because of their arrogant war and to continue repair works until everything settles down in 20 odd years.

Iraqi Airforce was not weak. It was equipped with latest French and Soviet Jets of that time. And many nations did not had BVR capabilities during 1990s. Pakistan have also acquired this capability recently (after 2001).

And you are wrong if you think that Iraqi Airforce was inept. It is just that US approach to air combat had significantly changed after Vietnam. USAF evolved in to a force capable of striking with precision and avoid harm.

All state of the art airforces were either equipped with BVR Missiles or would have procured them after the first encounter with a BVR armed adversary. Iraq was a spent force without means to fight a war.....that too with a super power.

And that's a new one for even you.....USAF evolved to avoid harm, harm to whom? USAF officials then agreed, civilans strongly disagree.

Saddam had the capability to hit back too during early 1990s. His forces downed some Coalition Aircraft and fired 90 Ballistic Missiles during Persian Gulf War 1991. Some of these missiles were aimed at Coalition military bases and they did hit them. Saddam even attempted to break the coalition by targeting Israel.

Answered above.



You need to establish this then.

Because Operation Neptune Spear showed otherwise. Now even if you argue that our defensive network is stronger on the Indian front, their are many loopholes in our defensive capabilities that US can easily exploit.[/QUOTE]

Well, I believe I asked you to not discuss OBL Operation simply because where you are adamant the operation was genuine, I am highly sceptical and believe it was all a drama with the help of GoP & Military. Lets wait for the OBL commissions report ok?

I have. Your point is baseless.

Lol....ok

And US defensive network is no joke either.

If launchers are deployed in this fashion:

- Their is little hope. That is 48 interceptors in one place.

Also, US is working on the capability to distinguish between a decoy and the real target.

It is stupid to target strongly defended regions. It makes sense to target the weakest links in a battle. Surely you are not a strategist.

Pakistan follows 'minimum credible deterrence' doctrine due to its limited resources. Pakistan will have limited options in a conflict with a much greater military power. Pakistan will be forced to calculate its options very very carefully.

Lets agree to disagree as there are capabilities on both sides that are undeclared. Let's also be realistic, a military conflict b/w the US and Pakistan will just not happen. But if it does then my opinion is that we will annihilate their military bases on land and sea in a diameter of 5k-8k. the losses that we incur are beyond the point of this debate.

And US never does its homework?

Every nation does its homework.

Their arrogance was their downfall in Vietnam and their arrogance is their downfall in Afghanistan. They failed to understand the regions and the inhabitants. The same is happening all over again in Pakistan.

This shows how much clueless you are.

US acquired S-300 system in 2004 from Croatia. By this time, US had already developed PAC-3 and used it in combat.

And I asked you to do some digging on THAAD. I did not asked for your generalization about it.

Read about THAAD here; Lockheed Martin · THAAD

THAAD is one of the most advanced, successful, and potent AM system in existence. It is a masterpiece of evolution of AM capability of US.

How many Jets & IRBM/ICBM/SRBM/LACM/SLCM etc. has PAC3 shot down? How many has THAAD shot down? When have they faced an adversary that is actually some good with these technologies? And how did you measure their success?

Don't tell me you read brochures!!

I do not expect these debates to be brief due to explanations involved.

Ah...well, if it must be done

Bro, this is why I abhor deception. Current leadership (Military and Civilian) have kept people in the dark on lot of matters. This is not good. People just do not know the facts and continue to speculate.

Regarding civilian casualties; they do occur unfortunately but it is unwise to assume that mostly they die. Civilians are not the target of the drones; terrorists are who are hiding in civilian dominated areas.

It's a good thing we have established that the drone strikes are being carried out with the blessings of GoP and PakMil. Having said that and despite agreement with you on Government's double standards and deception, I have to say that there are matters of National Security that just cannot be revealed to the public. However, drone strikes and agreements with the US are not matters that should be kept private especially since they are creating hatred and animosity against the US.

And I have deep reservations on the criteria which determines a person to be a militant by the US. That is why I believe they require ground level assistance from PakMil, if not already covertly provided. Every single Man/Woman/Child that they have executed through drone strikes are labelled extremists or terrorists, this is not fair.

This is where the confusion lay. What are our interests in Afghanistan? We want Afghan Taliban back in power? Do you think that this will be easy after all the investment US have made in Afghanistan thus far? What about the Afghans who do not wish Afghan Taliban back in power?

Our policy should be to convince/coerce Afghan Taliban to reach a settlement with the current Afghan government because like it or not - this Afghan government does have worldwide recognition. As long as the Haqqani offshoot of Afghan Taliban will continue to target US interests in Afghanistan and use Pakistani regions for its interests, we cannot expect peace to prevail and our relationship with US to normalize.

Too many 'what's' and 'ifs' in 2 paras. Starting from the beginning, our interest in Afghanistan in the late 60's and early 70's was strategic depth to shelter us from any possible invasion by the super power next door. Also, since the early days, we have been in competition with Iran & India for influence over our neighbours to ensure that their country is not used for anti Pakistan missions or activities such as which are currently prevalent in BLA & TTP. We were quite successful in our endeavours externally (not speaking on the influx and consequences in uncontrolled and unchecked temporary migration of refugees as that is beyond the scope of this discussion) as recently as 2001. After 2001, we were not given ample time to convince the Talibaan to hand over OBL to the US without any proof of his involvement in 9/11.

The US will not lay waste her investment in Afghanistan, but neither would we. We quite literally understand the dilemma of the super power but she also needs to understand our insistence on being the bigger stake holder. And apparently, majority of the Afghans still support Talibaan, otherwise they would be very hard pressed to find recruits ever ready to fill their ranks and fallen comrades. I am sure if we are given our due share, we would be able to convince Mullah Omer and Haqqanis to settle the issues with the US Government.

As long as the US Government fail to realize our legitimate concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan and involvement of external agencies operating from within Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, there can be no viable solution. The solution has to ensure both aggrieved are reasonable redressed, Pakistan even more so because we cannot just pack away and leave like the US can and did last time.

We have an obligation to stay committed to the decision that our former leadership took after 9/11. Keep in mind that after this decision US was not expecting Pakistan to support any faction of Taliban (Pakistani and Afghani). If Pakistani interests do no co-align with those of US, then this should have been conveyed to US when presented with the choice in the first place. Clearly Musharraf thought differently then our current leadership (Military in particular).

The understanding that was reached with the US post 9/11 is still not very public. How do we know that we committed to work even against those Talibaan that we actually considered our strategic depth? Or perhaps Musharraf & Co. realized that it was futile to reason with the super power as she had already decided on the course of action and that with passage of time, Pakistan would be able to reason with the ally. Maybe Musharraf had no other option but to buy time for the sake of Pakistan?

Commitment is commitment. Deal is a deal. Remember Sulah hudaibiya? Holy Prophet (PBUH) upheld the commitment to its fullest.

Do you know the beauty of Sulah-e-Hudabiya? I believe that it was a written agreement and not a verbal one. Islam strongly encourages documentation of all commitments. As otherwise, different parties would eventually deduce different meaning from the commitments for their individual advantages. In the case of Pak-US commitment, nothing was documented so everything is hearsay, more or less.

When you will not upheld a commitment, clearly their will be consequences.

Consequences will effect both sides, it is not a one way street. When advantages were/are shared by all sides, so will be the losses.

This is a myth.

Read this excellent report: An Introduction of the Taliban

Ok, well....you have your POV on the matter, I have mine. I still say Talibaan were nothing without PakMil. They may have initiated as a group but ISI made them what they became and it was because of support by PakMil that they achieved what they did.

So you realize that we do not control them. Good.

Now explain to me that how 'this lack of control' serves Pakistani interests? What the hell Pakistan is doing in WOT then? Do you realize the mess we have created with this duplicity?

This shows our lack of resolve to work with International Community on the Afghan issue. This is why we are facing the backlash. Does our current leadership (Military and Civilian) realizes that our Afghan policy will redefine our future course of relationship with lot of countries who have participated in WOT?

Have we forgotten that under the rule of Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan became a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide and it culminated in to 9/11. Now you will say that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Please don't.

Pakistani interests will be better served with strong relationship with lot of countries involved in WOT.

Yes, to start off, I would say that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise such as attack was just not possible. All the signs are there for those who want to understand the truth.

To understand how 'lack of control' serves any country, consider the example of China, do we control them? Do we influence their foreign policy? Yet the relationship with them still serves Pakistan. Similarly despite lack of control, the relation is beneficial for Pakistan even if all they do is ensure that agencies such as RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB etc. are unable to indulge in anti Pakistan activities.

A stable Afghanistan will ensure the no terrorism is planned on their soil but it will take time and it will take the will of Afghans, eventually, to elect the correct leadership.

And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?

TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.

Read about TTP here: Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) - Terrorist Groups

Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.

Please dude, read up what Mullah Omer as said about TTP, read up how he has denounced the organization. Do not engage me in debates to which clear answers are available. TTP are not linked to Talibaan, they are terrorists being trained, equipped and financed by RAW/CIA.

Oh yes! Afghan Taliban makes the wisest of the decisions. And my Pakistani brethren blindly fall for them.

You have to understand that most of them are not very west friendly, most of them are not educated in the western system and they are highly suspicious of the activities of the west as they have been bitten time and again by the west. It is our duty to persuade them and to tell them where they are making mistakes as polio vaccine is an absolute must and so are the other vaccinations and stuff.

I do not trust these figures. Our current leadership (Civilian in particular), which is corrupt to the core, have the habit of putting the blame of its mismanagement and shortcomings on others.

US have given lot of aid to Pakistan during WOT; 18 billion USD in total. Musharraf was good at bargaining with others. Our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not unfortunately.

Pakistan also have not managed to develop a powerful lobby in US for its benefit since independence. The end result is that US does not understands Pakistani needs properly. On the other hand, both India and Israel maintain strong lobbies in US and this benefits them.

Yes, I acknowledge that Pakistan have paid a high price in WOT. But the threat of militancy had to be kept in check. Otherwise, it would have turned in to a Frankenstein Monster for us.

However, lack of clarity over policy for WOT and Afghanistan (in our part) have resulted in current mess.

1) The figures of losses of US$ 80 Billion which includes wear & tear of transport network, foreign investment, tourism, mobilization and activity by PakMil, armaments & military equipment used, wear & tear to the military equipment, loss of life, loss of assets and revenue due to terror war etc., has been compiled by the Finance Ministry with the help of Defence Ministry/Foreign Ministry etc. The figures may have been estimated on occasions but they cannot be off the mark by much.

2) Of the 18 Billion that the US states it has provided to GoP, 46% is deducted as overheads....GoP has been provided only around 50-55% of that alleged 18 Billion in 'aid' which is roughly equal to US$ 10 Billion. Furthermore, most of the 'aid' has actually been reimbursements for the cost incurred by the Military on this US terror war. Do not be fooled by the propaganda this easily my friend.

3) You think Pakistan does not have a strong lobby in Washington, I would slightly amend it and say that the nexus of anti Pakistan lobbies in Washington especially that of India & Israel far outweigh our strong lobby in Washington and thus we are unable to convince them on many matters.

4) How did the 'supposed' threat of militancy harm us prior to 9/11? How were these so called militants (I would encourage the word freedom fighter for the Talibaan fighting invading forces as opposed to terrorists/extremists or militants who are involved in terrorism in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?

Bro, this is the bone of contention between US and Pakistan. Mullah Omar is not yet in the position to dictate his terms to US. Where is his government?

And we should persuade Mullah Omar to work with the International Community, if we do not wish to target his forces and allies. This is the least we should do.

Also, Taliban holds no power over ISAF in military context. ISAF have demonstrated the capability to increase its strength in Afghanistan on its own terms. And it will withdraw from Afghanistan on its own terms. Mark my words.

Had Mullah Omer's Talibaan been weak, the US would not have initiated a process of negotiations with them nor would it have exerted so much pressure on Pakistan to begin a war with the Haqqanis. This is the reason of contention I agree, but we do not want to engage 50k Talibaan fighters that we consider our asset, plain and simple.

The US thought that they could simply hold negotiations without Pakistan in Qatar, where did they get with that attempt? Without Mullah Omer and Haqqanis, there is not Talibaan and so without them there is no negotiations. The US Govt. has also vocally accepted pressurizing Pakistan to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table. However, Pakistan has declined the unreasonable demands as Pakistan has been consistently undermined in the whole process while at the same time the US attempts to give India a much bigger and undeserved role in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to take it all sitting down?

I have marked your words and now you mark mine, Soviet Union left Afghanistan upon Talibaan's terms and so will this super power!

US conveyed to him that he should withdraw from Kuwait. Saddam did not listened. US then gave him a deadline. Saddam did not listened. Get the memo?

Ok so there are only 3 possibilities here:

1 - Saddam considered US threats to be bluff
2 - Saddam thought he was strong enough to fight of the US & NATO.
3 - Saddam was actually in cahoots with US, and his actions gave them the opportunity to establish permanent Military bases and presence in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait.

One can simply write off atleast point number 2, point no. 1 has some merit but it is actually point no. 3 that holds the most substance.

Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. Iraq was a mediocre military power back then.

And it remained so after too.

However, during Persian Gulf War 1991, Iraq fired 39 Ballistic Missiles in to Israel to make a statement.

None of which hit any of the desired targets even though the Scuds were considered pretty good. They were intentionally fired into uninhibited deserts of Israel. Again, doesn't this arouse suspicion? There was hardly any loss from all the scuds that Iraq fired into Israel, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait combined.

I would also like to know the progress of Iraqi Military from 1981 to 1991 as you believe they achieved excellence from mediocre capability during that term.

Afghan war offers different kind of challenges. Their is no uniformed military group to be targeted. Afghan Taliban can easily blend with civilians and have support from Pashtun populace. In addition, Afghan Taliban enjoys Pakistani support. This further complicates the situation. And Afghan territory favors guerilla warfare. Furthermore, US have not deployed massive firepower in Afghanistan due to its geography. If Afghanistan had been connected with the ocean, then situation would have been different.

Look mate, America did whatever it could do conventionally but was not able to defeat the Talibaan. But for the purpose of argument here, by you reasoning Iraqi military should have resisted the invasion a lot more....albeit their shortcoming as per my conclusion in equipment, training and most probably dedication and patriotism.

You expect US to do everything for Pakistan in the light of the duplicity of its foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan? You sure are deluded, Sir.

No my friend, I do not want the US to do everything but I want them to acknowledge everything and to stop the smearing campaign that they have unleashed against Pakistan PakMil and ISI. Furthermore, I want them to reimburse the losses we have sustained because of their arrogant war and to continue repair works until everything settles down in 20 odd years.

Iraqi Airforce was not weak. It was equipped with latest French and Soviet Jets of that time. And many nations did not had BVR capabilities during 1990s. Pakistan have also acquired this capability recently (after 2001).

And you are wrong if you think that Iraqi Airforce was inept. It is just that US approach to air combat had significantly changed after Vietnam. USAF evolved in to a force capable of striking with precision and avoid harm.

All state of the art airforces were either equipped with BVR Missiles or would have procured them after the first encounter with a BVR armed adversary. Iraq was a spent force without means to fight a war.....that too with a super power.

And that's a new one for even you.....USAF evolved to avoid harm, harm to whom? USAF officials then agreed, civilans strongly disagree.

Saddam had the capability to hit back too during early 1990s. His forces downed some Coalition Aircraft and fired 90 Ballistic Missiles during Persian Gulf War 1991. Some of these missiles were aimed at Coalition military bases and they did hit them. Saddam even attempted to break the coalition by targeting Israel.

Answered above.



You need to establish this then.

Because Operation Neptune Spear showed otherwise. Now even if you argue that our defensive network is stronger on the Indian front, their are many loopholes in our defensive capabilities that US can easily exploit.[/QUOTE]

Well, I believe I asked you to not discuss OBL Operation simply because where you are adamant the operation was genuine, I am highly sceptical and believe it was all a drama with the help of GoP & Military. Lets wait for the OBL commissions report ok?

I have. Your point is baseless.

Lol....ok

And US defensive network is no joke either.

If launchers are deployed in this fashion:

- Their is little hope. That is 48 interceptors in one place.

Also, US is working on the capability to distinguish between a decoy and the real target.

It is stupid to target strongly defended regions. It makes sense to target the weakest links in a battle. Surely you are not a strategist.

Pakistan follows 'minimum credible deterrence' doctrine due to its limited resources. Pakistan will have limited options in a conflict with a much greater military power. Pakistan will be forced to calculate its options very very carefully.

Lets agree to disagree as there are capabilities on both sides that are undeclared. Let's also be realistic, a military conflict b/w the US and Pakistan will just not happen. But if it does then my opinion is that we will annihilate their military bases on land and sea in a diameter of 5k-8k. the losses that we incur are beyond the point of this debate.

And US never does its homework?

Every nation does its homework.

Their arrogance was their downfall in Vietnam and their arrogance is their downfall in Afghanistan. They failed to understand the regions and the inhabitants. The same is happening all over again in Pakistan.

This shows how much clueless you are.

US acquired S-300 system in 2004 from Croatia. By this time, US had already developed PAC-3 and used it in combat.

And I asked you to do some digging on THAAD. I did not asked for your generalization about it.

Read about THAAD here; Lockheed Martin · THAAD

THAAD is one of the most advanced, successful, and potent AM system in existence. It is a masterpiece of evolution of AM capability of US.

How many Jets & IRBM/ICBM/SRBM/LACM/SLCM etc. has PAC3 shot down? How many has THAAD shot down? When have they faced an adversary that is actually some good with these technologies? And how did you measure their success?

Don't tell me you read brochures!!

 

[LeGenD]

Ah...well, if it must be done

You are welcome.

It's a good thing we have established that the drone strikes are being carried out with the blessings of GoP and PakMil. Having said that and despite agreement with you on Government's double standards and deception, I have to say that there are matters of National Security that just cannot be revealed to the public. However, drone strikes and agreements with the US are not matters that should be kept private especially since they are creating hatred and animosity against the US.

We have established nothing on this point. My point is that deception and lack of information from Pakistani leadership (Military and Civilian) have given rise to speculations in this aspect. Simple.

And I have deep reservations on the criteria which determines a person to be a militant by the US. That is why I believe they require ground level assistance from PakMil, if not already covertly provided. Every single Man/Woman/Child that they have executed through drone strikes are labelled extremists or terrorists, this is not fair.

You think that only ISI knows how to identify a terrorist? CIA does not knows it work?

Too many 'what's' and 'ifs' in 2 paras. Starting from the beginning, our interest in Afghanistan in the late 60's and early 70's was strategic depth to shelter us from any possible invasion by the super power next door. Also, since the early days, we have been in competition with Iran & India for influence over our neighbours to ensure that their country is not used for anti Pakistan missions or activities such as which are currently prevalent in BLA & TTP. We were quite successful in our endeavours externally (not speaking on the influx and consequences in uncontrolled and unchecked temporary migration of refugees as that is beyond the scope of this discussion) as recently as 2001.

I concur with the objective of prevention of Anti-Pakistani missions and activities. However, I believe that we have played too much in to the hands of the politics of the superpowers concerning Afghanistan during the COLD WAR era. We have played a major part in radicalising this nation. And now it is highly unstable.

Stable and friendly Afghanistan is/should be our ultimate objective. But for this, we need to broaden are strategic mission and think beyond just Taliban.

After 2001, we were not given ample time to convince the Talibaan to hand over OBL to the US without any proof of his involvement in 9/11.

Yes, this is one issue that I also acknowledge. However, Musharraf did send a delegation to Afghan Taliban to convince it to hand over Osama Bin Laden to us (Pakistan). This delegation came back empty handed. Afghan Taliban failed to realize the gravity of the circumstances right after 9/11 event, which angered Bush administration and it was running short on patience. For Afghan Taliban, quick decision-making would have helped.

The US will not lay waste her investment in Afghanistan, but neither would we. We quite literally understand the dilemma of the super power but she also needs to understand our insistence on being the bigger stake holder. And apparently, majority of the Afghans still support Talibaan, otherwise they would be very hard pressed to find recruits ever ready to fill their ranks and fallen comrades. I am sure if we are given our due share, we would be able to convince Mullah Omer and Haqqanis to settle the issues with the US Government.

Your point is valid. However, I am skeptical about the assumption that majority of the Afghans support Afghan Taliban now. Narrow down your focus on just the Pashtun populace and you will be fooled. Afghanistan is actually split between Pro-Taliban and Anti-Taliban elements. Therefore, the only viable solution is settlement between both of these elements for peace.

As long as the US Government fail to realize our legitimate concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan and involvement of external agencies operating from within Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, there can be no viable solution. The solution has to ensure both aggrieved are reasonable redressed, Pakistan even more so because we cannot just pack away and leave like the US can and did last time.

I acknowledge that US should consider our concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan. But we need to look at the other side of the coin as well.

Read following:

• The haqqani network represents a strategic threat to the enduring stability of the afghan state and U.S. national security interests in the region. The haqqanis are currently afghanistan’s most capable and potent insurgent group, and they continue to maintain close operational and strategic ties with al-qaeda and their affiliates. These ties will likely deepen in the future.
  
• Unlike the quetta Shura taliban in southern afghanistan, the counterinsurgency campaign has not weakened the Haqqanis’ military capabilities significantly. Few of the “surge” resources deployed to their strongholds in eastern afghanistan. the haqqani network has increased its operational reach and jihadist credentials over the past several years. the haqqani network has expanded its reach toward the quetta Shura taliban’s historical strongholds in southern afghanistan, the areas surrounding kabul, as well as the afghan north.
  
• The haqqanis serve Pakistan’s interests by dominating key terrain along the border and beyond in Afghanistan’s south and east, serving as a Pakistani-influenced “firewall” against national, northern, U.S. and Indian influence. The Haqqanis would also serve Pakistan’s interests by being the primary influence in afghanistan’s Ghilzai Pashtun lands, as well as the tribal areas in north waziristan, organizing these tribal areas in ways consistent with Pakistan’s interests.
  
• The haqqanis execute spectacular attacks in kabul in order to generate a disproportionate psychological and propaganda effect. The Haqqanis have strengthened their presence in logar and Wardak, surrounding the southern and western approaches to kabul. they have also expanded into kabul’s eastern approachs in the provinces of nangarhar, Lahgman, and kapisa. the network will use these positions to increase their destabilizing attacks in kabul.
  
• The haqqanis are ideologically committed insurgents, and they are increasing their territorial reach. The group also has ties to al-qaeda and its affiliates. The Haqqanis have never given any indication that breaking ties with al-qaeda was either possible or in their interests. Consequently, the Haqqani Network is not reconcilable. they also do not fully follow the guidance of the quetta Shura taliban, because they maintain a separate power base and leadership structure.

Now you understand the problem?

By supporting Afghan Taliban movement, we have made some enemies in Afghanistan. These enemies are in power since 2001, and it does not surprises me if these enemies have/are engaged in Anti-Pakistani activities to give us a message. But these enemies are still open to reconciliation. Problem is with the Haqqani network which is not open to reconciliation. Therefore, we need to factor-in the concerns of every stakeholder in Afghanistan and be ready to make some concessions if required to do so. US may leave Afghanistan in 2014 but it has made it clear that it will continue to play its role in Afghanistan this time unlike USSR which left and did not looked back. Therefore, we are dealing with a committed superpower now which also happens to be the victor of the COLD WAR. So we need to calculate our options carefully.

The understanding that was reached with the US post 9/11 is still not very public. How do we know that we committed to work even against those Talibaan that we actually considered our strategic depth? Or perhaps Musharraf & Co. realized that it was futile to reason with the super power as she had already decided on the course of action and that with passage of time, Pakistan would be able to reason with the ally. Maybe Musharraf had no other option but to buy time for the sake of Pakistan?

Good point. But our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not doing a good job at reasoning with the ally and your point supports my argument that we suck at deals. Our current leadership (Military in particular) is supporting a militant network which is not willing to reconcile with US. The greatest concern of US is that this network has not even denounced support to al-Qaeda network and US does not wants Afghanistan to become a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide once again. At least, Musharraf had managed these affairs in a much better manner then Kayani.

Do you know the beauty of Sulah-e-Hudabiya? I believe that it was a written agreement and not a verbal one. Islam strongly encourages documentation of all commitments. As otherwise, different parties would eventually deduce different meaning from the commitments for their individual advantages. In the case of Pak-US commitment, nothing was documented so everything is hearsay, more or less.

Agreed.

Therefore, this validates my point that competency is lacking in the matters of foreign affairs in case of Pakistan.

Consequences will effect both sides, it is not a one way street. When advantages were/are shared by all sides, so will be the losses.

Yes. But is this the path that Pakistani leadership (Military and Civilian) should choose to adopt?

Ok, well....you have your POV on the matter, I have mine. I still say Talibaan were nothing without PakMil. They may have initiated as a group but ISI made them what they became and it was because of support by PakMil that they achieved what they did.

It is not my POV. Taliban demonstrated its potential first and then ISI stepped in.

Yes, to start off, I would say that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise such as attack was just not possible. All the signs are there for those who want to understand the truth.

And your assumption is based on conspiracy theories? US used to be a very open country prior to 9/11 event. Their were no stringent security systems and mechanisms in place. US was regarded as a land of opportunities due to its openness to foreigners prior to 9/11. The al-Qaeda network used this to its advantage and conducted sophisticated attacks. Of course, one former US military official of Muslim origin (M. Atta) was involved in this mission to ensure its success.

Thanks to 9/11, US have become a lot less hospitable place to visit.

To understand how 'lack of control' serves any country, consider the example of China, do we control them? Do we influence their foreign policy? Yet the relationship with them still serves Pakistan. Similarly despite lack of control, the relation is beneficial for Pakistan even if all they do is ensure that agencies such as RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB etc. are unable to indulge in anti Pakistan activities.

You are comparing a civilized society like China with fundamentalists?

The difference between the two is that you cannot reason with a fundamentalist.

And infiltration of RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB have occurred in Pakistan regardless of our alliance with some Taliban factions.

A stable Afghanistan will ensure the no terrorism is planned on their soil but it will take time and it will take the will of Afghans, eventually, to elect the correct leadership.

So you realize this? Stability cannot be achieved with fundamentalism. It can be achieved with reconciliation, development and investment.

Please dude, read up what Mullah Omer as said about TTP, read up how he has denounced the organization. Do not engage me in debates to which clear answers are available. TTP are not linked to Talibaan, they are terrorists being trained, equipped and financed by RAW/CIA.

Read this: The Complicated Relationship Between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban | Combating Terrorism Center at West Point

All of these Taliban factions are making a fool out of us. And gullible Pakistani fall for their ruse easily. TTP gets its recruits from Pakistan too and operates in same regions. Do the math.

You have to understand that most of them are not very west friendly, most of them are not educated in the western system and they are highly suspicious of the activities of the west as they have been bitten time and again by the west. It is our duty to persuade them and to tell them where they are making mistakes as polio vaccine is an absolute must and so are the other vaccinations and stuff.

Yes. And we are failing in our duties.

1) The figures of losses of US$ 80 Billion which includes wear & tear of transport network, foreign investment, tourism, mobilization and activity by PakMil, armaments & military equipment used, wear & tear to the military equipment, loss of life, loss of assets and revenue due to terror war etc., has been compiled by the Finance Ministry with the help of Defence Ministry/Foreign Ministry etc. The figures may have been estimated on occasions but they cannot be off the mark by much.

You trust this Finance ministry?

Even if we get ample funds, they will be still mismanaged.

2) Of the 18 Billion that the US states it has provided to GoP, 46% is deducted as overheads....GoP has been provided only around 50-55% of that alleged 18 Billion in 'aid' which is roughly equal to US$ 10 Billion. Furthermore, most of the 'aid' has actually been reimbursements for the cost incurred by the Military on this US terror war. Do not be fooled by the propaganda this easily my friend.

And source of your information is?

3) You think Pakistan does not have a strong lobby in Washington, I would slightly amend it and say that the nexus of anti Pakistan lobbies in Washington especially that of India & Israel far outweigh our strong lobby in Washington and thus we are unable to convince them on many matters.

This is not my thinking. This is a fact that many Pakistani fail to acknowledge. Our lobby is insignificant and our engagements are mostly limited to diplomatic levels. Their is no reasonable cultural engagement between the two countries. Many Americans do not understand the situation of Pakistan properly.

Just watch this excellent interview:

4) How did the 'supposed' threat of militancy harm us prior to 9/11? How were these so called militants (I would encourage the word freedom fighter for the Talibaan fighting invading forces as opposed to terrorists/extremists or militants who are involved in terrorism in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?

You still fail to realize the truth.

Following are the fruits of this militancy culture:

1. Afghanistan became a staging ground for foreign terrorists
2. Birth of TTP
3. Lawlessness in Tribal regions
4. WOT

This militancy culture has led us to the current mess. Reason is that militancy will spread, if not kept in check. And this is exactly what has happened. It began to spread its tentacles worldwide and 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks happened due to this. And when we took measures against militancy, we witnessed another tentacle in the form of rise of TTP.

Militancy cannot exist peacefully. Once its purpose is served, it finds another one to fight for.

---------------

I will answer more points later on.

 

[SinoChallenger]

How about converting some civilian planes to transport aircrafts to transport heavy weapons to Pakistan? I am certain China is capable of developing/producing enough civilian airplanes if it needs. China and Pakistan share a common border, I think, so it should not be much of a problem to transport heavy weapons to Pakistan. USA transported over 22,000 tonnes to so called 'Israel' in weapons during 1973 October War on short notice, where the distance between so called 'Israel' and USA was probably some 8 or 10 thousand kilometres.

It would be great if Pakistan obtained DF-21D or similar systems and some/many battalions of DF-41 ICBMs, perhaps.

Civilian planes are flat out impossible. China has a prototype of a heavy military transport that can carry >50 tons, enough for one HQ-19 SAM mobile launcher, but mass production is still one or two years away. Looks like getting KKH back to shape is still the quickest way. In any case, Pakistan is not under imminent threat of attack yet, so waiting for one or two years is fine.

USA has been a naval power for almost 100 years. Its airlift abilities are second to none, so it's not possible to make a direct comparison with China there.

I'm sure when the transport routes open up China will provide Pakistan with whatever is needed to defend itself. All Pakistan needs is the ability to deliver a WMD to Tel Aviv and USA will back off because it is afraid.

 

[VCheng]

............
I'm sure when the transport routes open up China will provide Pakistan with whatever is needed to defend itself. All Pakistan needs is the ability to deliver a WMD to Tel Aviv and USA will back off because it is afraid.

It would be the height of naivete to think that global geopolitics can ever be as simple as that.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Civilian planes are flat out impossible. China has a prototype of a heavy military transport that can carry >50 tons, enough for one HQ-19 SAM mobile launcher, but mass production is still one or two years away. Looks like getting KKH back to shape is still the quickest way. In any case, Pakistan is not under imminent threat of attack yet, so waiting for one or two years is fine.

USA has been a naval power for almost 100 years. Its airlift abilities are second to none, so it's not possible to make a direct comparison with China there.

I'm sure when the transport routes open up China will provide Pakistan with whatever is needed to defend itself. All Pakistan needs is the ability to deliver a WMD to Tel Aviv and USA will back off because it is afraid.

Why do you say civilian planes are 'impossible' to be used? You can change their 'liveries' or 'flags'. So called "Israel" did that for obtaining supplies from USA. It's not a big issue, I reckon. Do you need to transport SAMs with the TELs installed? Can't you disassemble them, load them to your transport planes and have them assembled upon arrival?

Naval power has little to do with airlift capability, I think, but I am shocked that China is so far behind in this sector compared to Russia or USA. I am really shocked that China has access to nothing like An-124, for example, as you say. What are China's heaviest transport aircrafts? Maybe I will read up on it to inform myself but I am still quite surprised that China's military airlift capability is so lacking in comparison to its competitors.

Edit: Sinodefence.com claims that IL-76MD is "most capable military transport aircraft currently in service with the PLA Air Force (PLAAF). The aircraft was designed by Ilyushin Design Bureau and built by Chkalov Aircraft Production Association at its Tashkent plant in Uzbekistan."

And Ilyushin.org states that Military Transport Airplane IL-76MD

max payload (t) 48

That's quite a shock!

Many smaller countries have much more capable transport aircrafts in service. Operating Antonov An-124 models could allow you to transport 150 tonnes at one go.

 

[SinoChallenger]

It would be the height of naivete to think that global geopolitics can ever be as simple as that.

North Korea survived a long time purely because it could lay waste to Seoul with artillery and nowadays can also reach Tokyo with nuclear missiles. Targeting Tel Aviv is the surest way to deter USA.

Why do you say civilian planes are 'impossible' to be used? You can change their 'liveries' or 'flags'. So called "Israel" did that for obtaining supplies from USA. It's not a big issue, I reckon. Do you need to transport SAMs with the TELs installed? Can't you disassemble them, load them to your transport planes and have them assembled upon arrival?

Civilian planes do not have the payload to carry something as large as a HQ-16 SAM mobile launcher. Disassembling is not recommended if you want things to work properly.

Naval power has little to do with airlift capability, I think, but I am shocked that China is so far behind in this sector compared to Russia or USA. I am really shocked that China has access to nothing like An-124, for example, as you say. What are China's heaviest transport aircrafts? Maybe I will read up on it to inform myself but I am still quite surprised that China's military airlift capability is so lacking in comparison to its competitors.

China has not traditionally been projecting power beyond its border. All logistical needs are taken care of by rail and road internally. Within China, we can deploy massive armor divisions using our high-speed railways.

China's >50 ton heavy transport Y-20 will be in service next year. Right now we have two prototypes. We prefer not to buy if we can make it ourselves.