Pakistan can't be occupied. Forget the cost, the 5,000 combat deaths they suffered in Iraq will be a picnic compared to the disaster an armed occupation of Pakistan will be, a country with a far higher ratio of nutters than Iraq ever had (without even counting the uniformed ones).Christopher Sidor wrote:
Fascinating. Let us do some math.
Iraq 2003, Population = 18 million. Occupation period by USA about 8-10 years. Money spent on Iraq by USA 1.1 Trillion USD. Figures courtesy Wikipedia.
Cost per Iraqi citizen = 61K USD.
Pakistan 2003. Population = 150 million (approx). If USA had occupied Pakistan and ruled over it for 8 years, then approximate cost of occupation = USD 9.15 Trillion. (Considering the fact that Pakistan's population is about 8.3 time Iraq's population)
GDP of America in 2003 = USD 11.51 Trillion.
The figures do not add up. USA is not going to do anything to Pakistan.
Politically it'll be troublesome, because for all its issues, at least in principle, its already a democracy. You can split off Baluchistan, Pakhtunistan and Gilgit but for the rest, its not really possible to affect a regime change. There's no reliable means of securing the nuclear weapons (assuming none are actually employed during the process).
If they actually had to do something to Pakistan, they'd go about it very differently. The first step would be to pull out everything they have in Afghanistan (via Tajikistan if necessary, persuade, bribe, threaten, whatever). Next would be low grade sanctions; cutting off aid & military support (China could probably alleviate that). Next escalation will be high level financial sanctions cutting them off from the global finance market a la Iran (not much China would be able to do, given Pakistan's dependence on remittances). That would then be followed up by a naval blockade (Iran would be probably help Pakistan out here; anti-US solidarity). An extreme measure thereafter would be to start an air campaign turning Pakistan's conventional military capability into rubble. At that stage, even if they hadn't achieved their aims by then (assuming they had some concrete objectives to begin with), they'd still probably find some justification,to call it 'Mission Accomplished' and go home. But ground invasion of Pakistan? Despite what the events of the last decade would suggest, they aren't that stupid.
Another aspect. How does an outside power threaten India in the most effective manner? Two ways, one via Indian Ocean and second via planes of Punjab or desert of Sindhi-Rajasthan-Gujarat.
Ground invasion from the W/SW won't work. Our SLOCs can right now be threatened only by the USN.
But by 2025, PLAN CBGs will have begun sorties into the IOR. And by 2030, they'll probably have the logistical wherewithal to forward base a fleet in the IOR, nixing the IAF & IN's preferred strategy i.e to concentrate their strength at the Malacca chokepoint where a transiting PLAN battle group would be vulnerable. Operating at range with enough escorts, they could convincingly threaten our SLOCs, forcing the IN to push out of land-based cover into a Midway type naval battle.
This BTW is where the USN could potentially play spoiler to the Chinese plans by stepping up their activity in East Asian waters, tying up PLAN (and PLAAF) resources, weakening their strength in the IOR (and Tibet).
The association with radia certainly seems to have influenced higher management at the tatas'
