We have no authority to enter Pakistan, US parameters only surround Afghanistan: Pentagon

[Dalit]

16+ years and still bluffing. Keep going Trumpland scum.

 

[Vortex]

The big bluff is not the fight against taliban or whatever.... But to let us to believe they fight against them.
Actually they are there for China...and to check mate China they need to make Pakistan fail... Or at least remove our nukes.

 

[LeGenD]

What solution US have for Pakistani nuclear missiles? They attack Iraq after all scud missiles destroyed by Iraq. Pakistan is not Iraq

1. Anti-Missile Defenses
2. Electronic jamming / countermeasures

Iraq had ballistic missiles in its inventory in 1991, and also in 2003, and used them in both wars.

Pakistan is not USA either. Much of our defenses are based on technology transfers from foreign entities. We do not produce anything that may surprise US in the battlefield.

 

[Trango Towers]

A Pentagon spokesman said that the US military will not conduct hot pursuit of Taliban and allied jihadist fighters from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Additionally, the spokesman said that the military would be fine if the Taliban was operating on the Pakistani side of the border.

“We have no authority to go into Pakistan,” Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Mike Andrews toldPajhwok Afghan News. US forces could ask for authority to chase Taliban fighters as they cross the border into Pakistan, but approval for such action “would certainly be the exception and not the norm,” he continued.

“Say, for example, we have troops in contact and then the Taliban forces go across the border,” Andrews told Pajhwok. “They are clearly inside Pakistan then. There’s no change with regards to respecting the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan.”

In the past the US military has defended its right to pursue Taliban forces retreating into Pakistan under its “inherent right of self defense.” [See LWJ report, Pakistan closes NATO supply route after latest US cross-border attack.]

Past US incursions into Pakistan

The US military has in rare cases pursued Taliban fighters as they crossed the border into Pakistan after battling US forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has responded furiously to such incursions.

In one of the most publicized instance, in Nov. 2011, US attack helicopters opened fire on Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s tribal agency of Mohmand. The Pakistani military claimed that 28 Pakistan troops, including two officers, were killed and 11 more were wounded. The Taliban fighters retreated to a Pakistani military outpost when the US opened fire. It is widely believed that the Pakistani troops were providing cover for the retreating Taliban force.

Pakistan responded to the Mohmand attack by closing the border to NATO supply trucks and also revoked the US military’s use of the Shamsi Airbase in Baluchistan province. The Shamsi Airbase was used as both a NATO logistics base and as a key node in the CIA’s Predator and Reaper drone campaign in North and South Waziristan.

Two high profile incidents occurred in 2008. The first was in June, when US troops pursued a Taliban force from Kunar into Mohmand, and killed 11 fighters. The Pakistani government claimed that the US killed Frontier Corps troops, but the US released video of the incident showing the Taliban being targeted as they fled from Kunar into Mohmand.

The second incident took place in Khyber in November, when US forces launched rocket attacks and ground strikes into the Tirah Valley, a known haven for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Lashkar-e-Islam. Seven people were reportedly killed and three were wounded in the strikes.

Three other cross border incursions took place in the fall of 2010, when US helicopters attacked Haqqani Network fighters as they fled back into the Pakistani tribal agencies of North Waziristan and Kurram after the terror group attacked US bases in Khost and Paktia provinces. More than 50 Haqqani Network fighters were reportedly killed in the Kurram attacks. Pakistan claimed two Frontier Corps troops were killed.

Currently, the US leaves the heavy lifting in Pakistan to covert airstrikes using unmanned Predators and Reapers against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas. There have been eight such strikes inside Paksitan so far in 2018.

In addition, the US carried out a unilateral special operations raid in May deep into Pakistani territory and killed Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Abbottabad, which was not far from Pakistan’s top military academy.

US military OK with the Taliban residing in Pakistan

The Pentagon spokesman also said that the US military can accept the Taliban presence inside Pakistan just as long as Afghanistan was secured.

“If the Taliban reside in Pakistan and we are able to provide safety and support and to help secure districts and provinces within Afghanistan, I think that is a tradeoff that we’re willing to make,” Andrews said, according to Pajhwok. “Because it’s not necessarily about these people over in Pakistan, it is about the Afghan people.

“But that’s something within Pakistan, that’s something the nation of Pakistan has got to resolve. Now we’re going to stay focused on Afghanistan.”

Additionally, Andrews said that the US military is “hopeful Pakistan will take action because not only do we feel it is going to serve Afghanistan, but it’s going to help protect Pakistan, India and the entire region.”

Pakistan routinely denies that the Taliban or any other jihadist group is permitted to use the country as a safe haven, and instead blamed India for regional instability. The Pakistani victim narrative falls apart when looking at how the government and military allow the Afghan Taliban, including the Haqqani Network, and groups allied jihadist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Mullah Nazir Group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, Hizbul Mujahideen, and Jaish-e-Mohammed to operate in the open without fear of reprisal from the state. [See LWJ report, In response to Trump, Pakistan claims no terrorist groups operate on its soil.]

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

Loool yet 70 percent of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban.. ..I don't see them running...does anyone else. What movie are we watching Hollywood or Bollywood

 

[My-Analogous]

1. Anti-Missile Defenses
2. Electronic jamming / countermeasures

Iraq had ballistic missiles in its inventory in 1991, and also in 2003, and used them in both wars.

Pakistan is not USA either. Much of our defenses are based on technology transfers from foreign entities. We do not produce anything that may surprise US in the battlefield.

Do you know that blast of nuclear in air is more dangerous then blast at land?. Blast in air will cover whole 360 degree. There is absolutely no solution for that the area where is hit is gone for another 100 years minimum.

 

[LeGenD]

Do you know that blast of nuclear in air is more dangerous then blast at land?. Blast in air will cover whole 360 degree. There is absolutely no solution for that the area where is hit is gone for another 100 years minimum.

When you intercept a ballistic missile mid- flight, its warhead does not detonate upon impact. The kinetic force of collision leads to utter destruction of both objects (Interceptor and Target).

Warhead detonation is pre-programmed (or) timer-based in advance, and destination-focused in large part.

 

[My-Analogous]

When you intercept a ballistic missile mid- flight, its warhead does not detonate upon impact. The kinetic force of collision leads to utter destruction of both objects (Interceptor and Target).

Warhead detonation is pre-programmed (or) timer-based in advance, and destination-focused in large part.

Nothing is 100%. Read this to understand that how things work
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...korea-missile-defense/?utm_term=.d2f011dedc6c

 

[LeGenD]

Nothing is 100%. Read this to understand that how things work
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...korea-missile-defense/?utm_term=.d2f011dedc6c

That article is about defenses against a volley of ICBMs over US mainland - a scenario that Pakistan is not in the position to subject US to.

Americans have adopted a multi-layered approach for its 'anti-missile defenses' in a theater which include electronic countermeasures, Aegis, THAAD and PAC-3. These systems - in combination - are more then enough to defeat anything Pakistan can throw at American forces near its region. Should US ever come after Pakistan, there would be a significant build-up in the region beforehand.

When they will strike, they will be taking out hundreds of targets across Pakistan in each volley until Pakistani defenses are nuetralized.

Anti-missile defenses will ensure that US will win the war with acceptable losses whereas Pakistan will meet its end.

 

[My-Analogous]

That article is about defenses against a volley of ICBMs over US mainland - a scenario that Pakistan is not in the position to subject US to.

Americans have adopted a multi-layered approach for its 'anti-missile defenses' in a theater which include electronic countermeasures, Aegis, THAAD and PAC-3. These systems - in combination - are more then enough to defeat anything Pakistan can throw at American forces near its region. Should US ever come after Pakistan, there would be a significant build-up in the region beforehand.

When they will strike, they will be taking out hundreds of targets across Pakistan in each volley until Pakistani defenses are nuetralized.

Anti-missile defenses will ensure that US will win the war with acceptable losses whereas Pakistan will meet its end.

If someone want to attack some body the effective range is between 300 to 600km distance (i am talking about full scale war) and maximum they can effort 800km to 1000km, after that no one can engage full scale war. If they want to attack Pakistan they need this distance atleast. When we are talking about that range, the time to kill incoming is very less and plus how much your system effective it can't be 100%. So even one missile hit target and having nuclear bomb means figure start with 100billion because no country will allow that risk and US Navy fleet minimum cost is that along with Aircraft Carrier. Do US can afford that?

 

[TMA]

If someone want to attack some body the effective range is between 300 to 600km distance (i am talking about full scale war) and maximum they can effort 800km to 1000km, after that no one can engage full scale war. If they want to attack Pakistan they need this distance atleast. When we are talking about that range, the time to kill incoming is very less and plus how much your system effective it can't be 100%. So even one missile hit target and having nuclear bomb means figure start with 100billion because no country will allow that risk and US Navy fleet minimum cost is that along with Aircraft Carrier. Do US can afford that?

They will only attack outright, when the destabilisation efforts are at such a stage where this can be done...

 

[LeGenD]

If someone want to attack some body the effective range is between 300 to 600km distance (i am talking about full scale war) and maximum they can effort 800km to 1000km, after that no one can engage full scale war. If they want to attack Pakistan they need this distance atleast. When we are talking about that range, the time to kill incoming is very less and plus how much your system effective it can't be 100%.

You are assuming a scenario in which Pakistan is well-aware of American naval formations across the Arabian Sea and would be in the position to strike at them on a moment's notice but this is unlikely. US won't allow Pakistan to achieve an in-depth understanding of its formations across the Arabian Sea and their course of action. They are known to deceive observers with false maneuvers [1] and they have sufficient naval strength to convert much of the Arabian Sea into a denial zone if they want to [2].

[1] Notable examples include:

- Operation Fortitude (World War II)
- Operation Imminent Thunder (Persian Gulf War, 1991)

[2] Overview of American naval strength: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a15297/us-navy-entire-fleet/

In regards to projecting power from safe distance, US can exercise ample options such as long-range bombers (B-1; B-2; and B-52), ICBM, SLBM and cruise missiles to soften Pakistani defenses and/or neutralize strategic assets. At the same time, they will neutralize PN and blanket Pakistani airspace with electronic countermeasures. They have operated within (and around) Pakistan for years, and would have amassed incredible amount of information by now. They would know when and where to strike; situational awareness is the key.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ohio_class.htm
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/long-range-strike-more-potent-more-survivable-cheaper/
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-planes-in-us-air-force-2016-5

Once the aforementioned phase of conflict is over, they can dispatch their armed forces into Pakistan to contend with the leftovers through the seas.

In regards to defenses against missiles, they can produce 100% results in an hostile environment as apparent from this case: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/uss-...ise-missiles-in-yemeni-waters-in-2016.543523/

Secondly, ballistic missiles are not recommended for use against American naval assets because they have ample room to maneuver in an oceanic environment and many are equipped with relevant countermeasures. It is not wise to expend an already limited inventory of ballistic missiles on targets which might slip through. One misconception is that American naval assets are stationed at close proximity to each other in a high-stakes environment - nope. So even if a nuclear warhead detonate in an oceanic environment, it won't achieve much.

Pakistani defenses are designed per regional challenges, my friend. US is a very dynamic and resourceful adversary with the capability to challenge/tackle any country head-on. Do NOT draw conclusions from developments in Afghanistan - US is playing political games there. Rules of engagement are completely different for a country like Pakistan - refer to American nuclear posture (2018) below.

So even one missile hit target and having nuclear bomb means figure start with 100billion because no country will allow that risk and US Navy fleet minimum cost is that along with Aircraft Carrier. Do US can afford that?

Bro,

Not long ago, US and North Korea were on the verge of a major showdown. While the masses were fixated on the coverage of exchange of threats and ballistic missile tests on TV, preparations for the showdown were underway behind-the-scenes:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/16/16896680/north-korea-trump-war-japan-missile
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/u...a/news-story/f6e1714d1c58ff30f5ef43aed31a541e
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...xplore-fight-in-north-koreas-maze-of-tunnels/

It would be a mistake to assume that they will not take their chances against a lesser nuclear power when the need arises. The so-called War On Terror provided ample cover to stress-test new tools, technologies and methods of power projection over time; Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen - each served as a testing ground for distinct methods of power projection. The overarching objective was/is to draw valuable lessons from such experiences in order to prepare for the next "great war."

The aforementioned tale is reminiscent to the course of events in the Cold War era; Americans fought a lengthy war in Vietnam, drew valuable lessons from this conflict, devised new tools of power projection accordingly and showcased an effective counter to Soviet methods of warfare in 1991.

They might showcase an effective counter to a regional nuclear power when the need arises. If you are expecting an LOC-style of engagement between the two countries, then you are not paying attention. Recall Operation Neptune Spear - an average Pakistani is still in disbelief in regards to what happened in Abbottabad in 2011. They blanketed a large portion of Pakistani airspace with radar-spoofing measures and dispatched stealthy choppers to infiltrate Abbottabad under the cover of darkness - our armed forces were blindsided and unable to respond effectively. Point is that they stand on a different plane of competence in both conventional and nuclear respects vis-a-vis Pakistan.

You can study American nuclear posture (2018) to have a better understanding of their political will in regards to conflicts with major powers: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/.../2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF

Pakistan should strive for productive relations with much of the WEST and recognize Israel. I think this would soften our image around the world.

 

[My-Analogous]

You are assuming a scenario in which Pakistan is well-aware of American naval formations across the Arabian Sea and would be in the position to strike at them on a moment's notice but this is unlikely. US won't allow Pakistan to achieve an in-depth understanding of its formations across the Arabian Sea and their course of action. They are known to deceive observers with false maneuvers [1] and they have sufficient naval strength to convert much of the Arabian Sea into a denial zone if they want to [2].

[1] Notable examples include:

- Operation Fortitude (World War II)
- Operation Imminent Thunder (Persian Gulf War, 1991)

[2] Overview of American naval strength: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a15297/us-navy-entire-fleet/

In regards to projecting power from safe distance, US can exercise ample options such as long-range bombers (B-1; B-2; and B-52), ICBM, SLBM and cruise missiles to soften Pakistani defenses and/or neutralize strategic assets. At the same time, they will neutralize PN and blanket Pakistani airspace with electronic countermeasures. They have operated within (and around) Pakistan for years, and would have amassed incredible amount of information by now. They would know when and where to strike; situational awareness is the key.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ohio_class.htm
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/long-range-strike-more-potent-more-survivable-cheaper/
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-planes-in-us-air-force-2016-5

Once the aforementioned phase of conflict is over, they can dispatch their armed forces into Pakistan to contend with the leftovers through the seas.

In regards to defenses against missiles, they can produce 100% results in an hostile environment as apparent from this case: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/uss-...ise-missiles-in-yemeni-waters-in-2016.543523/

Secondly, ballistic missiles are not recommended for use against American naval assets because they have ample room to maneuver in an oceanic environment and many are equipped with relevant countermeasures. It is not wise to expend an already limited inventory of ballistic missiles on targets which might slip through. One misconception is that American naval assets are stationed at close proximity to each other in a high-stakes environment - nope. So even if a nuclear warhead detonate in an oceanic environment, it won't achieve much.

Pakistani defenses are designed per regional challenges, my friend. US is a very dynamic and resourceful adversary with the capability to challenge/tackle any country head-on. Do NOT draw conclusions from developments in Afghanistan - US is playing political games there. Rules of engagement are completely different for a country like Pakistan - refer to American nuclear posture (2018) below.


Bro,

Not long ago, US and North Korea were on the verge of a major showdown. While the masses were fixated on the coverage of exchange of threats and ballistic missile tests on TV, preparations for the showdown were underway behind-the-scenes:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/16/16896680/north-korea-trump-war-japan-missile
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/u...a/news-story/f6e1714d1c58ff30f5ef43aed31a541e
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...xplore-fight-in-north-koreas-maze-of-tunnels/

It would be a mistake to assume that they will not take their chances against a lesser nuclear power when the need arises. The so-called War On Terror provided ample cover to stress-test new tools, technologies and methods of power projection over time; Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen - each served as a testing ground for distinct methods of power projection. The overarching objective was/is to draw valuable lessons from such experiences in order to prepare for the next "great war."

The aforementioned tale is reminiscent to the course of events in the Cold War era; Americans fought a lengthy war in Vietnam, drew valuable lessons from this conflict, devised new tools of power projection accordingly and showcased an effective counter to Soviet methods of warfare in 1991.

They might showcase an effective counter to a regional nuclear power when the need arises. If you are expecting an LOC-style of engagement between the two countries, then you are not paying attention. Recall Operation Neptune Spear - an average Pakistani is still in disbelief in regards to what happened in Abbottabad in 2011. They blanketed a large portion of Pakistani airspace with radar-spoofing measures and dispatched stealthy choppers to infiltrate Abbottabad under the cover of darkness - our armed forces were blindsided and unable to respond effectively. Point is that they stand on a different plane of competence in both conventional and nuclear respects vis-a-vis Pakistan.

You can study American nuclear posture (2018) to have a better understanding of their political will in regards to conflicts with major powers: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/.../2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF

Pakistan should strive for productive relations with much of the WEST and recognize Israel. I think this would soften our image around the world.

Pakistan is not easy target and we are not that bad. We are nuclear triad country and this mean that they have to think twice and yes they are far advance country but everything is have challenges and weakness, if we used that smartly then yes we can hurt them.

 

[LeGenD]

Pakistan is not easy target and we are not that bad. We are nuclear triad country and this mean that they have to think twice and yes they are far advance country but everything is have challenges and weakness, if we used that smartly then yes we can hurt them.

Of-course, Pakistan is not an easy target by virtue of being a regional nuclear power - never claimed otherwise. Virtually any opponent will think twice before taking its chances with a regional nuclear power be it Pakistan or North Korea but this doesn't imply that we can defeat US in a war (or) they will not win decisively in an all-out engagement. I have offered a simplistic explanation of what to expect - I don't feel the need to delve into dirty details because they have a demoralizing effect on some readers here. Being a researcher, I am privy to certain developments and have access to sources of information outside the reach of an average individual.

Yes, losses are expected in a full-scale war with a regional nuclear power. However, American objective is to win this kind of war with 'acceptable losses', and they will.

It shall be noted that some of our most capable weapon systems are in testing phase and/or mere tech-demonstrators at present. Testing does not imply operational readiness.

 

[TMA]

You are assuming a scenario in which Pakistan is well-aware of American naval formations across the Arabian Sea and would be in the position to strike at them on a moment's notice but this is unlikely. US won't allow Pakistan to achieve an in-depth understanding of its formations across the Arabian Sea and their course of action. They are known to deceive observers with false maneuvers [1] and they have sufficient naval strength to convert much of the Arabian Sea into a denial zone if they want to [2].

[1] Notable examples include:

- Operation Fortitude (World War II)
- Operation Imminent Thunder (Persian Gulf War, 1991)

[2] Overview of American naval strength: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a15297/us-navy-entire-fleet/

In regards to projecting power from safe distance, US can exercise ample options such as long-range bombers (B-1; B-2; and B-52), ICBM, SLBM and cruise missiles to soften Pakistani defenses and/or neutralize strategic assets. At the same time, they will neutralize PN and blanket Pakistani airspace with electronic countermeasures. They have operated within (and around) Pakistan for years, and would have amassed incredible amount of information by now. They would know when and where to strike; situational awareness is the key.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ohio_class.htm
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/long-range-strike-more-potent-more-survivable-cheaper/
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-planes-in-us-air-force-2016-5

Once the aforementioned phase of conflict is over, they can dispatch their armed forces into Pakistan to contend with the leftovers through the seas.

In regards to defenses against missiles, they can produce 100% results in an hostile environment as apparent from this case: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/uss-...ise-missiles-in-yemeni-waters-in-2016.543523/

Secondly, ballistic missiles are not recommended for use against American naval assets because they have ample room to maneuver in an oceanic environment and many are equipped with relevant countermeasures. It is not wise to expend an already limited inventory of ballistic missiles on targets which might slip through. One misconception is that American naval assets are stationed at close proximity to each other in a high-stakes environment - nope. So even if a nuclear warhead detonate in an oceanic environment, it won't achieve much.

Pakistani defenses are designed per regional challenges, my friend. US is a very dynamic and resourceful adversary with the capability to challenge/tackle any country head-on. Do NOT draw conclusions from developments in Afghanistan - US is playing political games there. Rules of engagement are completely different for a country like Pakistan - refer to American nuclear posture (2018) below.


Bro,

Not long ago, US and North Korea were on the verge of a major showdown. While the masses were fixated on the coverage of exchange of threats and ballistic missile tests on TV, preparations for the showdown were underway behind-the-scenes:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/16/16896680/north-korea-trump-war-japan-missile
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/u...a/news-story/f6e1714d1c58ff30f5ef43aed31a541e
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...xplore-fight-in-north-koreas-maze-of-tunnels/

It would be a mistake to assume that they will not take their chances against a lesser nuclear power when the need arises. The so-called War On Terror provided ample cover to stress-test new tools, technologies and methods of power projection over time; Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen - each served as a testing ground for distinct methods of power projection. The overarching objective was/is to draw valuable lessons from such experiences in order to prepare for the next "great war."

The aforementioned tale is reminiscent to the course of events in the Cold War era; Americans fought a lengthy war in Vietnam, drew valuable lessons from this conflict, devised new tools of power projection accordingly and showcased an effective counter to Soviet methods of warfare in 1991.

They might showcase an effective counter to a regional nuclear power when the need arises. If you are expecting an LOC-style of engagement between the two countries, then you are not paying attention. Recall Operation Neptune Spear - an average Pakistani is still in disbelief in regards to what happened in Abbottabad in 2011. They blanketed a large portion of Pakistani airspace with radar-spoofing measures and dispatched stealthy choppers to infiltrate Abbottabad under the cover of darkness - our armed forces were blindsided and unable to respond effectively. Point is that they stand on a different plane of competence in both conventional and nuclear respects vis-a-vis Pakistan.

You can study American nuclear posture (2018) to have a better understanding of their political will in regards to conflicts with major powers: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/.../2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF

Pakistan should strive for productive relations with much of the WEST and recognize Israel. I think this would soften our image around the world.

Why not Pakistan just hand her nuclear weapons over to USA or Israel and completely remove any traces of Islam that remains in her...if you want her to officially recognise Imposter Israel? Then Pakistan's image will be fantastic!

But on a serious note is there anything Pakistan can do or develop to deter a possible existential threat from a power like the USA? I am not sure but Russia and China have the means to deter an existential threat to them, no?

 

[Shah_G]

That article is about defenses against a volley of ICBMs over US mainland - a scenario that Pakistan is not in the position to subject US to.

Americans have adopted a multi-layered approach for its 'anti-missile defenses' in a theater which include electronic countermeasures, Aegis, THAAD and PAC-3. These systems - in combination - are more then enough to defeat anything Pakistan can throw at American forces near its region. Should US ever come after Pakistan, there would be a significant build-up in the region beforehand.

When they will strike, they will be taking out hundreds of targets across Pakistan in each volley until Pakistani defenses are nuetralized.

Anti-missile defenses will ensure that US will win the war with acceptable losses whereas Pakistan will meet its end.

But there’s a catch, Pakistan does posses a very heavy punch against all foes, because, all the USA military presence in East Asia, Middle East and West Africa falls within Pakistan’s range. Making USA military significantly weaker in the worlds arena without reaching the mainland.