It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
you really think America has the political will power or means to do so? Even then where would they invade from, through the Waziristan boarder region? That would be madness! I cant imagine Iran is going to be inclined to be used as a staging post, and if India allowed itself to be one then it would run a very very high risk of being nuked.
Originally posted by tarichar
With all due respect, I am currently writing a Masters thesis concerning the challenges facing the UN post-9/11 so I think I can speak from a fairly well grounded position when it comes to how US force projection can effect the global community.
Firstly, your point would require there to be a nuclear attack on the continental united states. There has been the possibility for non-state actors to obtain nuclear capabilities from the ex-soviet satellite states since the collapse of the USSR. If a terrorist group were to wish to do this it would have been done so by now.
I think the idea that Pakistan being on the verge of being over run by radical forces is highly inflammatory. Yes the Taliban does have a foot hold in Waziristan but the people who live there are highly conservative Pashtun, and quite literally 'radically' different from the majority of the population. I can easily imagine that there are snatch squads in place, I very much doubt they will be used. The greatest threat within pakistan is the increasingly authoritarian rule of president Musharaf.
The US truly would be ostracised by the rest of the international community; Afghanistan was a justified response, Iraq in terms of international law is a grey area to say the least, Pakistan would be without question completely illegal.
Correct me if I am wrong but arent American forces very stretched as it is? Are there sufficient troops to mount another invasion? Like Iraq, just because there are internal threats does not mean America would be welcomed as "liberators". Even if in the hypothetical situation that invasion was a success far more troops would be needed to occupy the country.
Finally, as to strategy - a war on three fronts?
Its not so much the states that I would be worried about, it would be the military officers guarding the sites being offered a years wages simply to look the other way.
So now radical simply defines anyone opposed to the US? Further more, you propose that any opposition party elected to power would be anti-american? I really find it hard to use this kind of binary opposite, simply being opposed to US foreign policy does not make a country an 'enemy' - especially an 'enemy' willing to use nuclear weapons. It takes away a huge number of other factors in a very complex situation.
Perhaps you could elaborate on the Kashmir situation and why that would increase support for US action?
"As you pointed out, US forces would not be greeted as liberators and therefore loss of life in Pakistan would be of no concernn" - this i cannot even begin to understand. Combined with the shock and awe comment this is pretty much promoting whole sale genocide.
Unfortunately with the nature of asymmetric war fare the idea of two fronts combining doesnt really count, even if they were treated as homogeneous mass it would be constantly perforated by insurgent attacks.
So even if he were democratically unseated it would appear impossible for other political groups to gain control of Pakistani nuclear weapons.
They are in separate parts, so in order for someone to capture a working bomb they would have to attack 3 separate instillations, which even by Western standards have a high level of defence.
So you are suggesting that India could be persuaded to attack from Kashmir? Or that there would a false flag attack that would force India to react to a perceived threat in Pakistan?
So you wouldn't support such a campaign? My lack of understand was how anyone could justify such a strategy, simply in terms of RoGs or even morally.
Current method of insurgency have been developed through 'open source warfare', that has already established there is no attraction in attacking well defended bases.
So if American troops were to hold up in a base, what would the point be?