What Would a Hypothetical U.S.-Pakistan War Look Like? - by Kyle Mizokami

[Zapper]

One word: Hell.

by Kyle Mizokami

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?

In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.

A prolonged U.S. air campaign would be a difficult proposition. Unlike past campaigns against Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, Washington would find regional allies who could provide air bases a difficult proposition. Pakistan enjoys warm relations with most of the Sunni states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both of whom have air bases capable of hosting U.S. tactical aircraft, as well as Saudi Arabia and Oman.


A U.S. air campaign directed against Pakistan would largely consist of bomber, carrier, and cruise missiles strikes. Strategic bombers, including the B-1, B-2, and B-52 would conduct strikes from the continental United States and the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Only these aircraft have the range to strike targets in Pakistan from friendly bases. Depending on the level of international support, long-range bombers could also launch from the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford, improving sortie rates.

The U.S. Navy would play a major role. U.S. forces would neutralize the relatively weak Pakistani Navy. While the Pakistani Navy operates about one hundred ships, it has only a handful of surface combatants of frigate size or larger, and just five aging diesel-electric submarines. Once these are neutralized the U.S. Navy could bring its aircraft carriers closer to the coastline, conducting airstrikes against military targets. Surface warships and nuclear-powered attack submarines would contribute by launching swarms of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles against highly defended targets.

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

The Pakistani Army consists of nearly 800,000 active-duty personnel, with significant reserves totaling more than a half-million. Much if not most of this force is arrayed against the border with India, but the U.S. invasion route would actually pass through many of Pakistan’s forward-deployed forces. While U.S. forces would be qualitatively superior, it would be a grinding fight that could be interrupted at any time by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan. India has seldom cooperated with the United States in military operations, declining to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. India’s cooperation would largely depend on the circumstance, the most likely being the U.S. joining an Indian-led coalition against Pakistan.

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072

 

[IceCold]

Has US won the war against Corona? Last we checked the death toll from Corona would far exceed than any war that might have resulted in US casualties. US will be better served fighting Corona at home than thinking about another war far away from its borders.

 

[Pakistan Ka Beta]

Hypothetical or already in USA minds plz continue writing about it (OR) may i say already trying other options but are not successful till now Alhamdulillah .

 

[Figaro]

One word: Hell.

by Kyle Mizokami

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?

In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.

A prolonged U.S. air campaign would be a difficult proposition. Unlike past campaigns against Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, Washington would find regional allies who could provide air bases a difficult proposition. Pakistan enjoys warm relations with most of the Sunni states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both of whom have air bases capable of hosting U.S. tactical aircraft, as well as Saudi Arabia and Oman.


A U.S. air campaign directed against Pakistan would largely consist of bomber, carrier, and cruise missiles strikes. Strategic bombers, including the B-1, B-2, and B-52 would conduct strikes from the continental United States and the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Only these aircraft have the range to strike targets in Pakistan from friendly bases. Depending on the level of international support, long-range bombers could also launch from the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford, improving sortie rates.

The U.S. Navy would play a major role. U.S. forces would neutralize the relatively weak Pakistani Navy. While the Pakistani Navy operates about one hundred ships, it has only a handful of surface combatants of frigate size or larger, and just five aging diesel-electric submarines. Once these are neutralized the U.S. Navy could bring its aircraft carriers closer to the coastline, conducting airstrikes against military targets. Surface warships and nuclear-powered attack submarines would contribute by launching swarms of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles against highly defended targets.

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

The Pakistani Army consists of nearly 800,000 active-duty personnel, with significant reserves totaling more than a half-million. Much if not most of this force is arrayed against the border with India, but the U.S. invasion route would actually pass through many of Pakistan’s forward-deployed forces. While U.S. forces would be qualitatively superior, it would be a grinding fight that could be interrupted at any time by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan. India has seldom cooperated with the United States in military operations, declining to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. India’s cooperation would largely depend on the circumstance, the most likely being the U.S. joining an Indian-led coalition against Pakistan.

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072

What a dumb scenario ... the next thing National Interest is gonna churn out is what will a hypothetical war between the US and Mexico look like. They've already churned out the US vs China or US vs Russia scenario too much so they've run out of ideas.

 

[NA71]

Indian poster is desperate.....he should be....

After 19 yrs spending in Afghanistan they couldn't fight barely few thousands Taleban with no military hardware except PRGs and AK47s..... they restored to deal and leaving out with heads down....

so better close this thread and get ready for COVID onslaught being reported in India.

 

[Kompromat]

Looks like isolation has cooked Mizokami's already rotten brain.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

In case of DirectWar between Pakistan and the US .... India will become glass and the good Indians will be glowing in the dark!

The US Establishment might dislike Pakistan but they do have a healthy respect for OurPakArmedForces @dbc

 

[Neutron]

One word: Hell.

by Kyle Mizokami

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?

In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.

A prolonged U.S. air campaign would be a difficult proposition. Unlike past campaigns against Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, Washington would find regional allies who could provide air bases a difficult proposition. Pakistan enjoys warm relations with most of the Sunni states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, both of whom have air bases capable of hosting U.S. tactical aircraft, as well as Saudi Arabia and Oman.


A U.S. air campaign directed against Pakistan would largely consist of bomber, carrier, and cruise missiles strikes. Strategic bombers, including the B-1, B-2, and B-52 would conduct strikes from the continental United States and the American base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Only these aircraft have the range to strike targets in Pakistan from friendly bases. Depending on the level of international support, long-range bombers could also launch from the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford, improving sortie rates.

The U.S. Navy would play a major role. U.S. forces would neutralize the relatively weak Pakistani Navy. While the Pakistani Navy operates about one hundred ships, it has only a handful of surface combatants of frigate size or larger, and just five aging diesel-electric submarines. Once these are neutralized the U.S. Navy could bring its aircraft carriers closer to the coastline, conducting airstrikes against military targets. Surface warships and nuclear-powered attack submarines would contribute by launching swarms of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles against highly defended targets.

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

The Pakistani Army consists of nearly 800,000 active-duty personnel, with significant reserves totaling more than a half-million. Much if not most of this force is arrayed against the border with India, but the U.S. invasion route would actually pass through many of Pakistan’s forward-deployed forces. While U.S. forces would be qualitatively superior, it would be a grinding fight that could be interrupted at any time by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan. India has seldom cooperated with the United States in military operations, declining to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. India’s cooperation would largely depend on the circumstance, the most likely being the U.S. joining an Indian-led coalition against Pakistan.

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072

He concluded something in last paragraph that indian couldn't comprehend so far.

"It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort."

 

[NA71]

In case of DirectWar between Pakistan and the US .... India will become glass and the good Indians will be glowing in the dark!

The US Establishment might dislike Pakistan but they do have a healthy respect for OurPakArmedForces @dbc

Basically, they avoid any military conflict with any opponent who can offer least resistance....North Korea and Iran Aare latest example...they are only indulge in mass killing like they did in Fallujah- Iraq or Kundoz- Afghanistan....mostly non combatants

 

[sur]

Looks like isolation has cooked Mizokami's already rotten brain.

Haven't watched episode of "Homeland" referenced in article. But this is not the only time certain producers/writers in media have expressed their fantasies towards Pak.

In "The Last Resort" (2012) US conducted a false flag attack on it's own ship to create excuse to nuke Pak. Girl in observatory was able to tell from speed of cruise missiles that they were not Babur, rather Tomahawk. But US did attack Pak.

Then on 2014 we saw some Navy officials trying to reenact similar scenario, hijack Pak ship & attack a US ship from that:

https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/5-n...-in-pakistan-for-trying-to-attack-us-warship/

https://www.dawn.com/news/1260340

https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/122376-PNS-Zulfiqar-case-five-Navy-officers-sentenced-to-death

Earlier Nickole Kidman was seen in a movie saying that the football that she was neutralizing, was made in Pak.

So such fantasies do exist out there and highly likely that some elements do try to make them happen.

He concluded . . . makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort."

It rhymes with the name of this series:

US only goes to war with countries where it cannot have its puppets . . .

Also only attacks those who cannot retaliate substantially. PAK has the option to strangle the parrot in whom the soul of the jinn lies. That little parrot in Middle East. In Hamid Gul's words "Desperate Pak will not go down alone, it will take the [parrot] down with it"

Other options could be to involve China and Russia by convincing them (or they already realize it) that absence of Pak would bode very bad for them later. And both of them will make sure US behaves.

Third option: if somehow a concerted effort could bring the dollar value really down, US will be left worth pennies. All H1Bs and brains will leave taking technological knowledge with them. West won't be able to afford the imports and chaos will result.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

certified chute

 

[fisher1]

US only goes to war with countries where it cannot have its puppets.

There's no need for war when you can have puppets.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

The question is whether or not India would join a U.S.-led coalition against Pakistan.

Vege Army will step in when the dinner is ready.

US only goes to war with countries where it cannot have its puppets.

There's no need for war when you can have puppets.

Abbottabad op and several other incursions on pak/afghan border were declaration of war technically.

 

[Awan68]

Lol, the writer very convieniently in his blatant ignorance or intentional
malice ignores the extremely advanced Pakistani missle capacity. Destroying the Pakistan Navy would not make way for unchecked advance of US navy to Pakistani coast line, longe range coastal batteries would wreak havoc upon the US navy in any such scenario, the air campaign over Pakistan would be the hardest the US has experienced since WW2, advanced SAM's and an extremely potent airforce would make life hell for them and to top it all, whichever bases the US chooses to launch strikes against Pakistan would not be safe from counter Pakistani missle strikes, going further it would require a mammoth effort for the US to achieve any kind of success in the ground invasion, even if the army retreats, holding any big city would be impossible for the US, Pakistan is a country densely populated and mist of the population has martial instinct and ample weapons to make it impossible for any enemy to hold a city for long. The US will never risk open war with Pakistan, that is exactly why they havent done so uptil now and rely on proxies and separatist movements to create instability in Pakistan.

 

[Jackdaws]

Fact is except for Russia, the Americans can overrun the armed forces of any country in a matter of weeks or months. The problem is what happens after that.