What's new

What stops USA from occupying Pakistan?

You clearly have no understanding of economics if you think GDP growth rate indicates the health of an economy. Pumping in stimulus packages can artificially temporarily boost the economy, but it's a band aid, & it comes off with time.
Here;

What is quantitative easing?

Usually, central banks try to raise the amount of lending and activity in the economy indirectly, by cutting interest rates.

Lower interest rates encourage people to spend, not save. But when interest rates can go no lower, a central bank's only option is to pump money into the economy directly. That is quantitative easing (QE).

The way the central bank does this is by buying assets - usually financial assets such as government and corporate bonds - using money it has simply created out of thin air.

The institutions selling those assets (either commercial banks or other financial businesses such as insurance companies) will then have "new" money in their accounts, which then boosts the money supply.

Source: BBC

This is what you are dubbing as pumping. To put it simple, US government has been buying assets to stimulate economic activity. Current forecast indicates that QE is no longer required.

What is the current situation of the US economy? Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the US pay its bills. The IMF has said that “closing the US fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of US GDP.”

Closing the US fiscal gap from the revenue side requires doubling of personal-income, corporate and federal taxes. The US needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. Then there are unofficial liabilities as well that have to be accounted.
US economic setup is too big and complex for any single person to explain properly. Expenditure related policies continue to change. If Obama has implemented MediCare in to the expenditure; the next administration can terminate it.

Total revenue generation of USA is at 5.1 Trillion USD currently. Total expenditure of USA is at 6.4 trillion USD currently. The fiscal gap can be easily bridged. And very large economies can tolerate fiscal gaps for a long long time.

And I will give you some indicators:

U.S. Manufacturing Grows at Fastest Pace in a Year: Economy - Businessweek

US job creation heralds stronger recovery

And US has no shortage of natural resources that can be exploited for economic purposes. Here is a sign; News Headlines (And this is just OIL.)

So lay off.
 
.
Here;



Source: BBC

This is what you are dubbing as pumping. To put it simple, US government has been buying assets to stimulate economic activity. Current forecast indicates that QE is no longer required.


US economic setup is too big and complex for any single person to explain properly. Expenditure related policies continue to change. If Obama has implemented MediCare in to the expenditure; the next administration can terminate it.

Total revenue generation of USA is at 5.1 Trillion USD currently. Total expenditure of USA is at 6.4 trillion USD currently. The fiscal gap can be easily bridged. And very large economies can tolerate fiscal gaps for a long long time.

And I will give you some indicators:

U.S. Manufacturing Grows at Fastest Pace in a Year: Economy - Businessweek

US job creation heralds stronger recovery

And US has no shortage of natural resources that can be exploited for economic purposes. Here is a sign; News Headlines (And this is just OIL.)

So lay off.

You are correct but you are discounting the deterrence effect of pakistan's nukes. Pakistan can and do quite a lot of damage to US interests so unless it is very desperate, it will not go for a direct military confrontation with pakistan.
 
.
I appreciate patriotism but this is way too unrealistic assumption.

1. US economy has not collapsed from so many wars in the past and neither it will do so due to this hypothetical conflict. Fighting overseas does not cripples economy. Can you shutdown Wall Street? Can you shutdown US corporations? Can you shutdown US military industy?

2. Afghanistan is a country of entirely different kind of challenges then Pakistan. Apples and Oranges comparison here.

Have the USA ever taken on an army our size? Due to our beloved neighbours one thing Pakistan has got is an adequate military machine. The resources that the USA would need to pump would match no other investment they have ever made in ANY war. Clearly the recent financial activity that has blessed their economy hasnt registered on you.
They really are on the brink - 1 out of 6 are on food stamps and over 20% are unemployed - do they really want to start another war? I am certainly not underestimating or under the impression their military might may be but at the same time give us some credit. Our forces would be something they havent encountered before and the losses would dwarf anything they have ever seen before. I dont think the average joe american would be able to take that on the chin....
 
.
I don't think so, considering Al-Qaeda terrorism has increased,
Media speculation. Not concrete evidence.

& the US was driven out of the country & has virtually no military presence there today.
Another baseless assumption from you. US forces were not driven out of the country but were pulled out because their was no need to continue the occupation.

And the Maliki regime is not a friendly regime, it is in the cahoots with Iran, they are considered Iranian proxies.
Maliki regime is not a threat to US interests in the region. And it is good that Maliki is seeking to amend its ties with Iran. This does not proves that he is an Iranian stooge.

They use pretty much the same techniques in rougher terrains as well. And if they use explosives, IEDs; they are still challenging their enemies, & still resisting them. So your argument is moot.
This kind of resistance accomplishes nothing and neither it damages US military much. US forces will leave Afghanistan at the time of choosing by US administration in the end. They will not be driven out by Taliban.

Who has hyped Taliban's inadequacy?
Check the history of debates in this forum. Where have you been all this time?

They are pretty adequate, because even with a low % of Afghans actively participating in the insurgency, they still have a good amount of indirect support from many of their fellow countrymen.
It is not adequate. Resistance can only be adequate if it accomplishes its objectives. Taliban cannot defeat US military and force it out of Afghanistan. And under US umbrella, Taliban cannot defeat Karzai regime and ANA either. Do the math now.

When the Pakistani people feel they have nothing to lose, they will fight. Look at the aftermath of the Salala checkpost incident a few months ago, most Pakistanis were out on the streets ready to fight.
I did not see such a thing in Lahore where over 10 million people live.

Most of the Afghan people were never ready to fight in the aftermath of the 9/11 incident.
Yes. And when the bombing started, most crawled back in to their homes.

You seem to be assuming that anti-state elements only exist in Pakistan. And the rest of your post is clearly hypothetical with no substance in it. All over the place.
I never stated that anti-state elements only exist in Pakistan. My point is that they do exist in Pakistan and it is intended to counter this comment of yours;

There are no divided opinions in Pakistan about the US

Now here is another thing; many rich people in Pakistan have dual nationality as well. Can you expect this segment to pick up arms? Unlikely.

And if you assume that people living in urban regions are not materialistic then you need to see a Psychologist. I see lot of materialistic people in Lahore and Karachi.

Most idiotic question yet from you. US military is second largest in the world.

Who will accommodate them? If they want to start a full, direct war with Pakistan; who will accommodate them & their supply routes/bases? Afghanistan is a landlocked country, India with its rising Islamic extremism/militancy all over the country, as well as Pakistan's nukes would not indulge in such foolhardy activities. Russia will not let arms be passed through its territory to be used against Pakistan, & will not support an invasion of Pakistan; just like it vetoed an invasion of Syria.
US can come through Arabian Sea. God! Common sense is not very common indeed! :hitwall:

And of course! I expect no invasion to occur in the first place because of some reasons that I have already mentioned. We are discussing a 'hypothetical scenario' here.

You are correct but you are discounting the deterrence effect of pakistan's nukes. Pakistan can and do quite a lot of damage to US interests so unless it is very desperate, it will not go for a direct military confrontation with pakistan.
Now should I remind you that how big of a nuclear power USA is in comparison? And unfortunately for Pakistan, it cannot damage US interests without targeting other Islamic nations, which is a big dilemma for military planners.

Have the USA ever taken on an army our size? Due to our beloved neighbours one thing Pakistan has got is an adequate military machine. The resources that the USA would need to pump would match no other investment they have ever made in ANY war.
Remember Persian Gulf War 1991? Why do people not look back at history?

And World War II was the most expensive war for USA. And it was conflict of gigantic proportions. Pakistan is just a single country.

Clearly the recent financial activity that has blessed their economy hasnt registered on you.
It has actually. And regardless of any economic setbacks, US has been able to fight 3 major wars in WOT till date. Doesn't this give you any hint?

They really are on the brink - 1 out of 6 are on food stamps and over 20% are unemployed - do they really want to start another war?
This is speculation. Unemployment rate is at 8%.

Also, check this: http://www.brecorder.com/world/glob...-job-creation-heralds-stronger-recovery-.html

I am certainly not underestimating or under the impression their military might may be but at the same time give us some credit.
You are severly underestimating US military capability. We get a very skewed picture of US military prowess on media sources. And I greatly admire Pakistani accomplishments. However, I am not blind to 'ground realities' around me.

Our forces would be something they havent encountered before and the losses would dwarf anything they have ever seen before. I dont think the average joe american would be able to take that on the chin....
Military capability wise, their is no comparison between US and Pakistan. Even intelligence officials share this view. Even China is decade behind US military might in capabilities.
 
.
US has no reason to occupy pakistan. all it needs done, it is getting done without any such occupation.

secondly pakistan has strong armed forces which wont be pushovers in war. US will suffer huge losses. Pakistanis might even make it a pyrrihic victory for the US

thirdly, its a very very painful job to occupy a country when 180 million people of that country are pissed with you and have millions of kalashnikovs
 
.
Now should I remind you that how big of a nuclear power USA is in comparison? And unfortunately for Pakistan, it cannot damage US interests without targeting other Islamic nations, which is a big dilemma for military planners.

Now should I remind you of China's stance against any US aggression in pakistan? USA's nuclear power does not matter here because it cannot hope to start WWIII just because of some mad man's desire to go to war with pakistan.

That is not any dilemma for pakistan and I am sure its military has contingency plan for such an eventually. Moreover, military planners do not think like that. You are making it sound like Pakistan is completely at the mercy of US and can't resist in any way. Military planners take into assessment grander things like how much will I sacrifice, how much of my soldiers will be killed, how much property will be destroyed How much will i gain etc. Unless these assessments indicate anything positive (which can only occur in a very desperate situation for US) US will not go for occupying pakistan.
 
.
US has no reason to occupy pakistan. all it needs done, it is getting done without any such occupation.

secondly pakistan has strong armed forces which wont be pushovers in war. US will suffer huge losses. Pakistanis might even make it a pyrrihic victory for the US

thirdly, its a very very painful job to occupy a country when 180 million people of that country are pissed with you and have millions of kalashnikovs
You are immensely overstating our capability. Even India does not possess this kind of power.

No Asian country poses any significant challenge to US military might. Only nukes offer deterrence.
 
.
Respectfully to all, why argue about a hypothetical such as direct war when such an event is just about flat out impossible.
 
.
World war 3rd, is stoping, us of a , to not attack pakistan,but. America has already done the damage To the country!
 
.
You are immensely overstating our capability. Even India does not possess this kind of power.

No Asian country poses any significant challenge to US military might. Only nukes offer deterrence.

i dont claim that any country can beat the US in open warfare. The US will win. The best we can hope for is to cause unaccpetable damage to the invasion forces.

however the point about 180million pissed off people stands correct. more for pakistan than india because of how common weapons are in pakistan. this point comes in after the US has won the war. once the occupations starts, there will be 500k or so soldiers at best faced with the population of pakistan which has a lot of guns. eventually the number of casualties they suffer will drive the US away.
 
.
Now should I remind you of China's stance against any US aggression in pakistan?
Where was THIS China when US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to stone age after 9/11?

USA's nuclear power does not matter here because it cannot hope to start WWIII just because of some mad man's desire to go to war with pakistan.
It actually matters. US has made it clear in its policy that IF any nation even threatens to use WMDs against it, US will have full legitimacy in using its WMDs and will not be answerable to any other state.

And according to expert information, US is currently the only country in the world with (active) non-strategic nuclear arsenal.

And WWIII cannot occur so easily unless humanity wishes to end itself. Even if we say that India and Pakistan nuke each other (God forbid), WWIII will still not occur.

That is not any dilemma for pakistan and I am sure its military has contingency plan for such an eventually. Moreover, military planners do not think like that. You are making it sound like Pakistan is completely at the mercy of US and can't resist in any way. Military planners take into assessment grander things like how much will I sacrifice, how much of my soldiers will be killed, how much property will be destroyed How much will i gain etc. Unless these assessments indicate anything positive (which can only occur in a very desperate situation for US) US will not go for occupying pakistan.
All countries have contingency plans. And situation of Pakistan is lot different from that of let us say Russia.

Pakistan has brotherly ties with other Islamic nations and will not wish to harm them without solid reasons. Other Islamic nations are not likely to support invasion of Pakistan but they will be silent spectators.
 
.
Where was THIS China when US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to stone age after 9/11?............

The same China that returned the P3C Orion after it had collided with a jet, killing the pilot?

Realpolitik wins every time!
 
.
i dont claim that any country can beat the US in open warfare. The US will win. The best we can hope for is to cause unaccpetable damage to the invasion forces.
This claim of causing unacceptable damage is just a claim. Let us not forget that USA is far more militarily powerful then it used to be during the days of Vietnam.

however the point about 180million pissed off people stands correct. more for pakistan than india because of how common weapons are in pakistan. this point comes in after the US has won the war. once the occupations starts, there will be 500k or so soldiers at best faced with the population of pakistan which has a lot of guns. eventually the number of casualties they suffer will drive the US away.
Misleading assumption. You are assuming that Pakistani people are Terminator like robots who will just pick up arms and fight with great expertise?
 
.
Now should I remind you of China's stance against any US aggression in pakistan? USA's nuclear power does not matter here because it cannot hope to start WWIII just because of some mad man's desire to go to war with pakistan.

That is not any dilemma for pakistan and I am sure its military has contingency plan for such an eventually. Moreover, military planners do not think like that. You are making it sound like Pakistan is completely at the mercy of US and can't resist in any way. Military planners take into assessment grander things like how much will I sacrifice, how much of my soldiers will be killed, how much property will be destroyed How much will i gain etc. Unless these assessments indicate anything positive (which can only occur in a very desperate situation for US) US will not go for occupying pakistan.

China will do what is best for China. If China decides that an unoccupied pakistan is worth the trouble of going to war with USA, then china will intervene. If not, then China will turn a blind eye and let US do as it pleases
 
.
Pakistani army is not only the security guarantee of Pakistan, there are also other Muslim nations that borrow expertise and manpower from Pakistan; some of them very influential when it comes to fossil fuels weapon.

If US attacks Pakistan, it will definitely involve India and that will definitely involve other regional nations; that's surely MAD.

If US occupies Pakistan, then China will be encircled from all sides by US allies, i.e. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Japan which could involve in active conflict with China and other nations like Phillipines, Vietnam, Myanmar which have or are leaning towards US. US could block all of China's Middle Eastern Oil Supply or Shipping lines at will. Directly or indirectly, this makes China as Pakistan's ally. After all, there is a reason some Chinese diplomat has said that Pakistan is China's Israel. China does have a policy to avoid direct confrontation but there are other ways to fight a war.

In their heart of hearts, they know what a nuclear weapon is; they know where it can strike and it does not need to be launched by a cruise missile or a fighter plane to hit them or their allies; their are other ways, untraceable, unthinkable.

Lastly, when the Nation of Pakistan is under attack what do you guys think the people controlling the Nukes will be thinking?

Will they be thinking: Oh we can't do anything at all,
or
Will it be: This is the time we have been preparing for.

Desperate circumstances call for desperate measures.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom