Pakistani airforce on red alert, expecting possible American action

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
And more from MSM trying to stir up tensions :

Pakistanis tied to 2007 border ambush on Americans

A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

An American major was killed and three American officers were wounded, along with their Afghan interpreter, in what fresh accounts from the Afghan and American officers who were there reveal was a complex, calculated assault by a nominal ally. The Pakistanis opened fire on the Americans, who returned fire before escaping in a blood-soaked Black Hawk helicopter.

The attack, in Teri Mangal on May 14, 2007, was kept quiet by Washington, which for much of a decade has seemed to play down or ignore signals that Pakistan would pursue its own interests, or even sometimes behave as an enemy.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Pak wants defence pact with China: Report

Pakistan has apparently been secretly lobbying for a defence pact with China though the initiative has been met with caution in Beijing, which feels that such an agreement could put the two 'all-weather' allies in trouble with the USA and India, a media report said today.
Pakistan made overtures to China regarding the defence pact early this year when its relationship with the USA was weakened by several controversies, 'The Express Tribune' quoted unnamed diplomatic and military officials as saying.
However, there is “little hope” for an immediate breakthrough, it said.

Good news that China didn't say YES YES YES...

Drone strike kills 2 in S Waziristan

A US drone strike on a compound near South Waziristan town of Azam Warsak killed at least two people.

According to Express 24/7 correspondent, Iftikhar Firdous, a drone fired two missiles at a compound in Azam Warsak, near the South Waziristan town of Wana which killed at least two people.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Well, here we go SHTF everyone creating secret alliances, posturing ready to fight and it might happen. If it does so long so long so long and thanks for all the fish....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Honestly, I think that Pakistan will implode before the U.S even attempts an attack. The destabilization of Pakistan would be a good thing in the eyes of the U.S. and India.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by princeofpeace
 




The leaders of both countries may have changed since then but the same premise holds true. Yes Pakistan may have a hundred nukes but they cant reach the US.

Yeah but they can nuke US bases in the middle-east and can nuke Europe.

And China-Pakistan is like US-Israel.

So the US REALLY attacks Pakistan and it'll be WW3.


So you think China will attack the USA? The Chinese aren't ready for a major war against a super power.

Pakistan can nuke Europe? Their best missile has a range of 2,500km.
They can't even hit Cyprus, let alone the European mainland.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
It is unwise to under-estimate China.
They have considerable resources.

Pakistan would not do what it is doing if it did not have the backing.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Why dont you all get your heads out of the "We are bigger, they have less" mindset. Put that bravado to better use by stopping wars not boasting about who has the biggest punch. Im sick to the back teeth of their games and totally sickened how people think this world the way it is right now is suitable for our children to grow up in.

Its a board game to many but tell that to the Afghanistan, Iraqi or Libyan mother thats trying to find a missing limb off a 4 year old. The world has gone to hell because we let it. Murdering psychopaths plan death and destruction because we let them. Because we allow it we are as guilty if not more so than them.

"The bravery of being out of range" has been inbuilt in our psyche, but one day the bombs will be a threat to you and yours, as they are in far off places that the US has deemed expendable as far as the populations are concerned. Where is that meteor when we deserve it ?

respects



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


Naive? This isn't guess work. I have been in the US military since 1999 and I keep up with reports on PLA hardware and equipment.

I'm not real good at sarcasm though, so forgive me if that was your intentions.


Anyway here is a brief look at China's "modern" forces, with a comparison to US forces.

People's Liberation Army Main Battle Tanks:

5,000 Type 59: PLA version of the Soviet T-54/55, 1st gen
200 Type 69/79: Upgraded Type 59s, 1st gen
450 Type 88: Upgraded Type 79, 2nd gen
2,000+ Type 96: (Primary Main Battle Tank), 3rd gen
800 Type 99: Designed after the Gulf War to take on M1 Abrams, 3rd gen

US Main Battle Tanks:

4,796 M1A1 Abrams, they have annihilated Type 59s toType 88s in Iraq and elsewhere, 3rd gen
1,547 M1A2 Abrams, considered one of the top 3 tanks in the world (Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A6 being the other two), 3rd gen

That is 6,343 3rd generation main battle tanks in the US arsenal. The PLA only have 800 tanks that are designed to be able to fight the M1 Abrams. The US would blitz the PLA GF on the battlefield.


People's Liberation Army, Combat Aircraft: (Navy and Air Force combined)

290 Q-5: Based on the Mig-19, 2nd Gen
114 JH-7: Designed to replace the Q-5, compete with the F-111, 3rd gen
220 J-7: Based on the Mig-21, 3rd gen
180 J-8: Designed to compete with the F-105, 3rd gen
69 Su-27(Russian): Designed to compete with the F-15, 4th gen
120 J-11: Based on the Su-27. Designed to compete with F-16s and and F-15s, 4th gen
97 Su-30MKK(Russian): Designed to compete with F-15s, 4th gen
190 J-10: Designed to compete with the Su-27 and Mig-29, 4th gen

US Combat Aircraft:

335 A-10, 3rd gen
1,789 F-16, 4th gen
647 F/A-18 Hornets, 4th gen
391 F/A-18 Super Hornets, 4th gen
734 F-15C/D Eagles, 4th gen
220+ F-15E, 4th gen
173 F-22, 5th gen

We have more F-16s then they have of total combat aircraft. It should be noted that the US has more combat airpower than Russia and China combined, this is intentional in order for the US to have air supremacy in the event we had to fight both nations at the same time.

People's Liberation Army, Strategic Bombers:

110 H-6, Chinese version of the Tu-16, each carries 20,000 lbs of ordnance

US Strategic Bombers:

94 B-52, each carries 70,000 lbs of ordnance
65 B-1B, each can carry 125,000 lbs of ordnance
20 B-2, each can hold 50,000 lbs of ordnance

That combines to almost 16 million lbs. in one sortie. It would take less than 500 sorties to drop the same level of ordnance that allied forces dropped on Europe in World War II from 1939-1945.

I shouldn't even go into the naval aspect since the PLA navy is frankly a complete joke, but for amusement here it is.

PLA Navy Warships:

1 Aircraft Carrier
26 Destroyers
51 Frigates
12 Nuclear Subs
48 Conventional Subs

US Navy Warships:

11 Super Carriers (Note the US is the only nation that uses massive Super Carriers, each with 70 F/A-Hornets.)
10 Amphibious Assault Ships (Similar in size to China's single carrier, each carries thousands of US Marines, amphibious assault vehicles, gunships, etc. )
73 Nuclear Subs
22 Cruisers
61 Destroyers
27 Frigates

Like I said before this isn't naive. I can go into the number of heavy lift aircraft China has compared to the US and their actual logistic capability. They don't have the capability to project very far beyond their borders. They don't even have the air or sea lift capability to threaten Guam, much less fight a global war against the US.

I have to repeat, the US military is currently designed to fight Russia and China at the same time and win, by maintaining naval and air supremacy, while using overwhelming combined arms tactics on the ground to neutralize their armor and mechanized forces, leaving only a rag tag guerilla force which would only be useful in defending against occupation, which we would not do. Instead we would isolate and blockade them, bombing them into a pre industrial state until we deemed them no longer a threat.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
X100000

I wish folks would read this every time they start spitting that China is so big and bad crap. This really puts it into perspective how tiny and far behind China's military is. This needs to be starred, flagged and referenced so these kids who think China is the best thing since sliced bread will STFU.


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Krono
 


Naive? This isn't guess work. I have been in the US military since 1999 and I keep up with reports on PLA hardware and equipment.

I'm not real good at sarcasm though, so forgive me if that was your intentions.


Anyway here is a brief look at China's "modern" forces, with a comparison to US forces.

People's Liberation Army Main Battle Tanks:

5,000 Type 59: PLA version of the Soviet T-54/55, 1st gen
200 Type 69/79: Upgraded Type 59s, 1st gen
450 Type 88: Upgraded Type 79, 2nd gen
2,000+ Type 96: (Primary Main Battle Tank), 3rd gen
800 Type 99: Designed after the Gulf War to take on M1 Abrams, 3rd gen

US Main Battle Tanks:

4,796 M1A1 Abrams, they have annihilated Type 59s toType 88s in Iraq and elsewhere, 3rd gen
1,547 M1A2 Abrams, considered one of the top 3 tanks in the world (Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A6 being the other two), 3rd gen

That is 6,343 3rd generation main battle tanks in the US arsenal. The PLA only have 800 tanks that are designed to be able to fight the M1 Abrams. The US would blitz the PLA GF on the battlefield.


People's Liberation Army, Combat Aircraft: (Navy and Air Force combined)

290 Q-5: Based on the Mig-19, 2nd Gen
114 JH-7: Designed to replace the Q-5, compete with the F-111, 3rd gen
220 J-7: Based on the Mig-21, 3rd gen
180 J-8: Designed to compete with the F-105, 3rd gen
69 Su-27(Russian): Designed to compete with the F-15, 4th gen
120 J-11: Based on the Su-27. Designed to compete with F-16s and and F-15s, 4th gen
97 Su-30MKK(Russian): Designed to compete with F-15s, 4th gen
190 J-10: Designed to compete with the Su-27 and Mig-29, 4th gen

US Combat Aircraft:

335 A-10, 3rd gen
1,789 F-16, 4th gen
647 F/A-18 Hornets, 4th gen
391 F/A-18 Super Hornets, 4th gen
734 F-15C/D Eagles, 4th gen
220+ F-15E, 4th gen
173 F-22, 5th gen

We have more F-16s then they have of total combat aircraft. It should be noted that the US has more combat airpower than Russia and China combined, this is intentional in order for the US to have air supremacy in the event we had to fight both nations at the same time.

People's Liberation Army, Strategic Bombers:

110 H-6, Chinese version of the Tu-16, each carries 20,000 lbs of ordnance

US Strategic Bombers:

94 B-52, each carries 70,000 lbs of ordnance
65 B-1B, each can carry 125,000 lbs of ordnance
20 B-2, each can hold 50,000 lbs of ordnance

That combines to almost 16 million lbs. in one sortie. It would take less than 500 sorties to drop the same level of ordnance that allied forces dropped on Europe in World War II from 1939-1945.

I shouldn't even go into the naval aspect since the PLA navy is frankly a complete joke, but for amusement here it is.

PLA Navy Warships:

1 Aircraft Carrier
26 Destroyers
51 Frigates
12 Nuclear Subs
48 Conventional Subs

US Navy Warships:

11 Super Carriers (Note the US is the only nation that uses massive Super Carriers, each with 70 F/A-Hornets.)
10 Amphibious Assault Ships (Similar in size to China's single carrier, each carries thousands of US Marines, amphibious assault vehicles, gunships, etc. )
73 Nuclear Subs
22 Cruisers
61 Destroyers
27 Frigates

Like I said before this isn't naive. I can go into the number of heavy lift aircraft China has compared to the US and their actual logistic capability. They don't have the capability to project very far beyond their borders. They don't even have the air or sea lift capability to threaten Guam, much less fight a global war against the US.

I have to repeat, the US military is currently designed to fight Russia and China at the same time and win, by maintaining naval and air supremacy, while using overwhelming combined arms tactics on the ground to neutralize their armor and mechanized forces, leaving only a rag tag guerilla force which would only be useful in defending against occupation, which we would not do. Instead we would isolate and blockade them, bombing them into a pre industrial state until we deemed them no longer a threat.













posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


Krono, if your going to belly up to the big boy table, please bring knowledge next time.

China CAN NOT travel accross the globe and inflict ANY damage on the US. They DO NOT have the capabilities. Period!!!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


As opposed to Palin Mcain??? Are you kidding?

You better thank your lucky stars that neither Hilary or McCain are president. We would be discussing who will be the winner, not the instigator.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This is getting surreal! These three points from news articles in the past week;

1. Possible US action against Pakistan.

2. Possible Israeli action against Iran before winter.

3. Opposition in Syria are demanding a no-fly zone.

I appreciate your frequent updates Vit.


Regards, Skellon.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Thanks. Here's two more.

Pakistan intelligence chief tells political leaders US military action against militants in Pakistan would be unacceptable: TV

FLASH: Pakistan intelligence chief tells political leaders army can respond to any U.S. military action in Pakistan - TV

This ain't good at all. Hopefully this is just for public consumption otherwise... uh oh.

More :
Pakistan will be forced to retaliate, CIA chief told

The effort to ensure that diplomacy and calmer heads prevail at a time of fragile relations between Pakistan and the United States is on. However, the effort notwithstanding, Islamabad has made it clear to Washington that, if it comes down to it, Pakistan will be forced to retaliate if American forces attempt to launch a unilateral strike on the country’s tribal belt.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Express Tribune that Pasha had informed his counterpart that the Pakistani people will not tolerate any US misadventure and in that case the government will be left with no other option but to retaliate.

“We cannot be caught off guard this time,” the official told lawmakers, referring to the raid that embarrassed the country’s powerful security establishment about its ignorance of the world’s most wanted man’s whereabouts. “This time, we will give them a surprise if they (Americans) dare,” he said.


U.S. says in final review to designate Haqqani network as terrorist group

U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Washington is in final review on decision to designate the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization.

"We're in the final, formal review that has to be undertaken to make a government-wide decision to designate the network as a foreign terrorist organization," Clinton told reporters at a joint press conference with visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohammed Kamel Amr.
edit on 29-9-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Didn't Obama express a want/desire to attack Pakistan a year or two ago?

Not surprised.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Pakistan has always been 'wannabe' lighthouse of the Muslim world.
The terrorists/mobs have been used as a political tool by Islamabad since its independence.

The million dollar question is why Britain/USA chose to ignore this reality for so long.

I know USA is hurting because it takes too much money to keep terrorists at bay. It is much easier to fight an army than a group of fanatics.

USA needs a big rethink, on who could be its friends in the 21st century.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
POK-is-stan (Obama's pronunciation) has been in his sights ever since he took office. He mentioned them no less than 10 times during one of his earlier speeches. Basically his take is that Iraq and Afghanistan arent who needed to be attacked but rath POK-is-stan.


Originally posted by macman
Didn't Obama express a want/desire to attack Pakistan a year or two ago?

Not surprised.






new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join