US strike options on TSP

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by darshhan »

Muppalla wrote:Bharat Rakshak is having dreams
I agree.Although if BRFites have any good ideas about " US Strike options in Pakistan" I would suggest them to post them by all means.But do it on American forums.Give Americans those ideas.Even I would do the same. What is the point of discussing those options here on BRF? It is like two bald men discussing the finer points of a comb.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Pranav »

darshhan wrote:It is like two bald men discussing the finer points of a comb.
:)
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by rajanb »

I think the Americans will apply pressure. Economic, diplomatic and turn off the military aid. Also hurt Paki H&D extremely.

As far as action on the ground is concerned there will be generally arms length action. National Birds and now national mijjlees. But there may also be a or a few dramatic OBL type operation(s).

This will be ratched slowly, just to see and maybe stop short of The Paki breaking point.

The Americans have already hinted that they are keeping tabs on whom they want to vapourise. They also have said that do not talk of civilian casualities/collateral damage because the same civilians are involved in protecting the targets.

At the same time, they may allow those afghani groups who hate the pakis to impudently cross over and create havoc and possibly assist them with intel and long range firepower.

As far as an air war is concerned, highly unlikely, except to shoot down any Paki bird interfering.

I see the US of A as being confused. Now the Pakis too are confused. While the former is trying to get down to straight thinking, the latter is spinning into confusion. That is where I wonder what the nuclear scenario is going to be like? I hope that the US/Afghan has intel with hands on the Paki Nuclear pulse, but that is something we do not know.

I, like many others, would like to see, in one fell swoop, the Pakis entering the stone age, like their railways. But that, to me is just a dream.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Altair »

What the hell are you guys smoking! can i please have some? If US is really, I mean "really" wants to solve the problem, it MUST involve India. There is no other option. US cannot possibly do it alone even with NATO. So the real question should be how far would US go to involve India to solve the Af-Pak problem ?. Everything else is just Bull$hit. I apologize for being so blunt.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by SwamyG »

LoL. If America had tough time in Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes one believe it will be an easy ride in Pakistan. I think Pakistan will stand up to USA more than India has done.

I hope the thread starter comes back and offers some more insight.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

darshhan wrote:It is like two bald men discussing the finer points of a comb.
1. They are unable to "part" with it
2. They can feel the "fine points" better than others
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by VikramS »

shiv:


What would help if you put yourself in the PakJabi shoes.

=> The motorable roads coming from Sindh/Quetta are well guarded and it is hard to sneak by.
=> There are national birds keeping an eye above if someone wants to take a detour around the entry points around the check-points
=> There is a concentric ring of such check points which control access across all road based ingress points.
=> The truck route itself has a fleet of birds looking out for suspicious activity 24x7. Each 75km stretch has one bird lighting up the area with IR, millimeter and other sensors to detect any suspicious move.
=> There are chopper pads in secure locations every 100-200 Km which allow forces to engage within an hour of a report.
=> Some of the birds themselves can engage without requiring humans
=> The landscape provides pockets of cover but there are vast open areas which provide little cover
=> The landscape is sparsely populated and does not offer the opportunity to mix in with the locals
=> The locals themselves are not likely to be welcoming
=> The landscape is dry and relatively flat. It is not hard to maintain kaccha un-metalled paths or even create detours using the appropriate equipment.


Now Commandu Hakim, tell me how will you plan operations to disrupt the convoys?


You are comparing the technology of half a century ago when you talk about Vietnam. I have no idea of how the US experience in Somalia is relevant here.

You say it will be easy for 50 men to sneak in and occupy a strategic point

The question I have for you is whether the 50 men will emerge from the tunnel of Chagai Hills, or a djinn will emote them, or some angel from heaven will drop them?

How will the 50 hostile men cover their moves, when the local population is neutral, if not openly unfriendly?

Will they dig a tunnel like mushaks to cover vast distances and not be seen by the national and state birds? How much explosive and arms can a small group take across when they know the roads are guarded?

What is more likely is that a much smaller group sneaks in but their ability to cause damage is limited simply because the logistic support needed is going to be hard to come.

Remember the total population of Balochistan is less than 10M. Much of it is concentrated on the coasts or the Quetta area. The vast Western areas are almost like a gigantic moonscape, very few roads, very few cities and very few people.
member_20023
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by member_20023 »

RajeshA wrote:Securing land routes through Baluchistan is perhaps the simplest of enterprises.

India ∨ USA can build up a Baluch National Army of say 80,000 and they can look after security of the roads. It is a sparsely populated place, and any Pakjabi or even Pushtun would stick out like a sore thumb.

The Pushtuns are mostly in the North/Northeast of Baluchistan and that region need not be part of the "Independent" Baluchistan. In Baluchistan Proper (just populated by Baluchs and liberated by India ∨ USA) Areas Pakjabis and Pushtuns would simply not be allowed in. The Baluchs would take care of that. There can be an added layer of security by India ∨ USA as well.

USA can finance. India can build the roads. We can build a motorway from Gwadar going all the way to Afghanistan which passes only through Baluch territory.
Rajesh,
This could be a good idea, baloochistan, provides oil security, we can have direct routes to Iran and Afganistan..
then we can put our forces along the afgan-pak border.. this way we can crush pakis and keep china at bay..
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Prem »

Internal distrbances can keep Pakjabi mercernaries busy while Baluch and Pushtuns go their own way with peoper incentives from WEST and India. Create economic harships , complete stop to energy import plus destruction of Poak infrastructure will embroil PA for years to crush internal unrest. By the time they get breather, game will be all over.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

VikramS wrote: You are comparing the technology of half a century ago when you talk about Vietnam. I have no idea of how the US experience in Somalia is relevant here.

You say it will be easy for 50 men to sneak in and occupy a strategic point

The question I have for you is whether the 50 men will emerge from the tunnel of Chagai Hills, or a djinn will emote them, or some angel from heaven will drop them?

How will the 50 hostile men cover their moves, when the local population is neutral, if not openly unfriendly?

Will they dig a tunnel like mushaks to cover vast distances and not be seen by the national and state birds? How much explosive and arms can a small group take across when they know the roads are guarded?

What is more likely is that a much smaller group sneaks in but their ability to cause damage is limited simply because the logistic support needed is going to be hard to come.

Remember the total population of Balochistan is less than 10M. Much of it is concentrated on the coasts or the Quetta area. The vast Western areas are almost like a gigantic moonscape, very few roads, very few cities and very few people.
Vikramji the Taliban have pushed the US into a stalemate using the very same technology used by the Viet Cong and the Somalis. You are too hung up on "technology" to see that "asymmetric warfare" is what was fought by Vietnam, Somalis and the Taliban. Asymmetric warfare is what is used by resistance forces when weapons/militaries of the adversary are so powerful that you cannot fight them on their terms. You have to make those weapons useless and fight them on your terms. That is how the Soviets were frustrated by the Taliban and that is what the US is seeing now. It's not US defeat, but chronic lack of US victory - a situation that suited the Viet Cong, the Somalis and the Taliban

That is what the Pakis will do. Technology is virtually useless as the US has learnt, but you may not have noticed.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by rajanb »

Altair wrote:What the hell are you guys smoking! can i please have some? If US is really, I mean "really" wants to solve the problem, it MUST involve India. There is no other option. US cannot possibly do it alone even with NATO. So the real question should be how far would US go to involve India to solve the Af-Pak problem ?. Everything else is just Bull$hit. I apologize for being so blunt.
Altairji: To answer your first question - Benson & Hedges Regular.

With Krishna and now Karzai (today's paper) talking peese the only way what you say is possible if peese is the overt stance and helping US is the covert stance.

So let us dream on. :wink:
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Airavat »

The assumption being made that every single Baloch is automatically anti-Pakistan, pro-Independence, and pro-America is faulty. Groups like the BLA were formed out of middle-class educated youth in the urban areas. However all these cities and towns are under firm Pakistani control; and even in the ones in purely Baloch areas, like Khuzdar, Kalat, Gwadar, Turbat, etc people can always be paid for laying IEDs or striking tankers.

The second assumption is that Pakistanis will be evicted from every single one of these urban centers. The Frontier Corps (Baluchistan) is around 30,000 strong with 11 units headquartered in different towns, while the army has the units of 12 Corps (2 infantry divisions, 7 infantry brigades, and artillery) mostly in the urban areas. Even with air assaults these cannot be wiped out without collateral damage to the Baloch; it will take some long-drawn urban warfare before they surrender.

Among the Baloch tribes in the countryside, a few are integrated into the Puke political system, others are fighting against Pakistan, and many others are fighting each other. Therefore a Baloch nation and a Baloch National Army cannot emerge quickly enough to replace the Pakistanis.

So before the US spends billions on another war without clear aims, it will be much more cost effective to finance, arm, and provide diplomatic support to first create a united Baloch opposition.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Altair »

rajanb
US realized that it would be very difficult to stabilize Af-Pak without involving India. They just need to part with a bigger piece of pie to India which means lesser piece to themselves. Would they be willing to do that is the question.
Altair
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4654
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by hnair »

As long as pakis allow khan to use their bases, what is the need for US to attack, hold ground etc?

khan never showed any aptitude for a "law-enforcement heavy" military operation in a foreign land. They love their firepower too much and never try to do administrative jugaad with the existing resources of a country they attacked. They wipe everything clean and start afresh, thanks to Bechtel type contractors getting tons of rebuilding contracts. UK and France has somewhat better history after post-WWs, when they did not act poodle. But we are talking about pakis here not immediate neighborhood IRA or OAS. Pakis are experienced at insurgency with lots of civilian causalities and the only ones who dealt with it via a "law-enforcement heavy" military option is India.

But we (and Karzai) seem to be feeding them Gripewater and lulling them to sleep. All these two (khan and pakis) are trying to do is negotiate the markup on paki's services rendered. Let them keep sniffing each other's butt and bark at the stench.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by rajanb »

Altair wrote:rajanb
US realized that it would be very difficult to stabilize Af-Pak without involving India. They just need to part with a bigger piece of pie to India which means lesser piece to themselves. Would they be willing to do that is the question.
Altair
Altairji, I agree.

But there are a few problems here:

One is that, due to the past, we will always be suspicious of the US.

Two, and I agree with this, we do not want foriegn troops on our ground. Except when they grab our territory, attack us as non-state actors and we have joint military exercises with them.

Three, we love our non-alignment. I agree that non-alignment is utopian, but then we should have the muscle and the diplomacy to back it and to ensure we are taken seriously.

However, that does not stop us from covertly assisting them. And we should drive a hard bargain and ensure that our assistance is conditional to decimating all terror organisations. ( Clinton did make a reference to the fact that all terrorist organisations were painted with the same brush of killing innocents.)

We, and this is my POV, think that the Pakis are same peepuls and they are much less a threat. Than China whom we stood down in the Indo China Sea. I think that was a good example of how we should deal with the Pakis too.

I am not a dhoti shivering type, having seen our armed forces in killing action personally, but if we can get others to do some of our work, why not? Haven't the US done that to the Pakis?

I hope the next step in this saga is not the confused US asking us to postpone our war games because the pakis may cry wolf and say they have to reduce strength on their western borders and shift them to their eastern flank.

But on the other hand, if the pakis shift troops to the eastern front, it is a win win situation for the US. Easier for them to bully the pakis, and conduct cross border attacks.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by VikramS »

shiv:

It is clear that the creation of a new route through Balochistan effectively means the creation of a "free" West Balochistan which requires decisions well above most pay-grades. I believe that if and when that decision is taken, it will be one of the easier challenges to implement it compared to managing Iraq, Taleban or Afghanistan. Part of it is the landscape; part of it is the lack of population and part of it is the structure of the population.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Altair »

rajanb wrote:
Altair wrote:rajanb
US realized that it would be very difficult to stabilize Af-Pak without involving India. They just need to part with a bigger piece of pie to India which means lesser piece to themselves. Would they be willing to do that is the question.
Altair
Altairji, I agree.

But there are a few problems here:

One is that, due to the past, we will always be suspicious of the US.

.....
We are both suspicious of each other, India and US. and we can continue to do that for the next 100 years as well. Both our nations will exist,guaranteed but with a big thorn causing pain to both of us. It can be done away with if we both trust each other. Trust is built brick by brick and this is a chance to start over. If US is serious to solve the problem it must involve India in any plans of carving new countries out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless US is mentally prepared to share more with India,there will be further decline in current situation until none has any control.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

VikramS wrote:shiv:

It is clear that the creation of a new route through Balochistan effectively means the creation of a "free" West Balochistan which requires decisions well above most pay-grades. I believe that if and when that decision is taken, it will be one of the easier challenges to implement it compared to managing Iraq, Taleban or Afghanistan. Part of it is the landscape; part of it is the lack of population and part of it is the structure of the population.
In fact, that move should be combined with allowing the creation of a free Pasthunistan that incorporates territory on both sides of the Durand line. That would leave a rump Pakjab/Sindh with a huge migrant Pashtun and Mohajir population.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by rajanb »

Altairji:

I agree. You are bang on. As Indics we have been trusting. And for whatever reasons we feel let down by the US. The USSR, initially was a partner we trusted. Russia? The jury is out on that one.

We should take a more proactive position, privately, in ensuring that Afghanistan morphs into a democratic, sovereign country and not Pakistan's backyard. And in doing so we must be involved in helping the US in cleansing the Pakistani backyard of snakes and enhance their purity. :wink:

The reason for suggesting we do this privately is because our "homeland" security has too many holes than home in it. And I hasten to add, not so much as the bravehearts who defend it, but thanks to our polity.

On the strike options, a calibrated escalation is called for. Not shock and awe.

Shock and Awe used earlier has to an extent delivered shock to the US economy.

It has to be a pshycological combination of pinning painful darts into the body and H&D of the Pakis combined with the loud trumpeting of cooperation. Reduce the sly, scheming and tactical brilliance of the Pakis (which they have been able to demonstrate because of their shameless non-adherence to simple rules of diplomacy and humanity) into utter confusion and chaos. In other words, be as shameless as them in lying and double speak!

The descent into utter confusion and chaos has been amply demonstrated by the Pakis when matters have reached a head: '65, 71 and Kargil.

On the pakis and their nuke option. A brief stone age message is sufficient, backed by a projection of strong will to do so.
nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by nvishal »

The US cannot keep going like it has because it only benefits the pakistan army. We are already seeing the effects of this as US lethargy.

The only other option left is to make pakistan army its enemy. This means several things:
a) It will have to fight pakistan army
b) It have have to fight the tanzims
c) Likely disappearance of unknown no of nuclear warheads

Remember, the tanzims in af-pak need a master without which they will wreak havoc across the world. Even if we imagine a world without the PA, who has the muscle to wrest control over the tanzims? The only option then is to create infighting within these tanzims. But the world is more concerned about scenario no 3. Terrorist strikes can kill 500 or 5000. A nuclear detonation can kill hundred thousands and millions worth material damage. The risk can give more returns but can prove very costly also.

My conclusion is that the US will not attack pakistan until it can figure out a way to handle the nuclear situation.

I will also conclude that the pakistan army will not fight the US in an open battle. They will succumb to pressure and shutdown the haqqani's temporarily. The PA is not so yahoo as we think they are. They've made compromises in the past. If they are sure they WILL loose the gamble, then they WILL make compromises.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by RajeshA »

Airavat wrote:The assumption being made that every single Baloch is automatically anti-Pakistan, pro-Independence, and pro-America is faulty. Groups like the BLA were formed out of middle-class educated youth in the urban areas. However all these cities and towns are under firm Pakistani control; and even in the ones in purely Baloch areas, like Khuzdar, Kalat, Gwadar, Turbat, etc people can always be paid for laying IEDs or striking tankers.

The second assumption is that Pakistanis will be evicted from every single one of these urban centers. The Frontier Corps (Baluchistan) is around 30,000 strong with 11 units headquartered in different towns, while the army has the units of 12 Corps (2 infantry divisions, 7 infantry brigades, and artillery) mostly in the urban areas. Even with air assaults these cannot be wiped out without collateral damage to the Baloch; it will take some long-drawn urban warfare before they surrender.

Among the Baloch tribes in the countryside, a few are integrated into the Puke political system, others are fighting against Pakistan, and many others are fighting each other. Therefore a Baloch nation and a Baloch National Army cannot emerge quickly enough to replace the Pakistanis.

So before the US spends billions on another war without clear aims, it will be much more cost effective to finance, arm, and provide diplomatic support to first create a united Baloch opposition.
Airavat ji,

you are of course quite right!

The dominant system always manages to pull away some collaborateurs, in order to subjugate the majority. A firm (India ∨ USA) commitment to a Free Baluchistan would give the collaborateurs too reason to believe that there is an alternative future besides latching on to the Pakjabi bandwagon.

Only if the Baluchis see a future outside Pakistan would the Baloch nation fully consolidate.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

I have been doing some reading on mostly rahrahrah sites about the Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk. I would like to make some comments based on what I have read.

All these UAVs/UCAV's have an impressive endurance and coverage area.

The Predator has a range of about 5 to 6000 km and an endurance of up to 24 hours. It can conduct surveillance over 60,000 sq km. But it cruises slowly - less than 100 mph and can't carry much. The Reaper has a more powerful engine, carries more but its range is somewhat less. It can fly faster - up to 300 kmph. The Global Hawk too is impressive. I estimate that one Global Hawk can maintain surveillance over all of Baluchistan for 24 hours. My guesstimate is that it would take 4-r Predators to do the same thing.

All this is the good news, the "raharahrah-aintthatawesome-Americawillgetcha-bringonthemarines" information.

Now on to some detail. The Predator can pick up moving targets anywhere in a radius of 100 km. That is 30,000 sq km. Very impressive. But for it to pick up a vehicle (6 meter resolution) it has to focus on a 4000 sq km area. And for it to pick up a man sized object it will focus on a 10 sq km area.

No information is available to say if the machine can be doing a general surveillance of all moving objects while tracking one or more vehicles in different areas while tracking a group of men in another area. In the field of view of the Predator - on any given day there may be perhaps 50 to 100,000 moving objects ranging from vehicles to animals to humans. if one were to track all of them that would be a huge workload, so tracking would have to be restricted to what are considered vulnerable areas of a road has to be protected. The national bird visits so far was based on elint and humint. But we are talking about war and opposing the Paki army and protecting a supply route in Baluchistan.

The other little thing that I have ignored here is that we are talking about Baluchistan and not a billiard table. Baluchistan is hardly flat like a billiard table. It has plenty of mountains that essentially block the field of view of any aerial surveillance unless it happens to be more or less directly above. And then there is the problem of weather. Baluchistan too has weather. Early morning fog, cloud cover etc.

So the theory that a handful of Predators/Reapers could provide enough security to 1000 plus km of highway stretches credulity despite the undoubtedly superlative performance of those machines. Pakistan has a 600,000 strong army and teh country has 18 million small arms on the loose. A group of just 2000 armed men in groups of twos and threes would be able to infiltrate and sabotage multiple points on any highway on the ground in Baluchistan unless unkil actually occupied that territory.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by RajeshA »

Perhaps a infrared monitoring of the road can alert to a bombing of some area of the road, which could lead to getting a visual of the area perhaps using night-vision aerial survey. On getting a positive confirmation, various security units in the area can be alerted and the area can be cordoned off, and then the hunting parties can smoke out the rats!

The point is that yes there may be some chance of some Pakjabis escaping detection in Baluch hostile territory, where they manage to bypass all the road check points, travel over 100s of kms of uneven territory using unconventional means of transport, and dodge Baluch herdsmen, Baluch villages, Baluch scout parties, and drones! Yes, then there is still some chance they can successfully damage the road or they can plant some IEDs! And then after doing so, may be they can escape from Baluchistan using their invisibility cloaks! Indeed some possibility of all this exists!

Should then one based on this slight possibility, stop considering the very strategic option of using Baluchistan region as a gateway to Central Asia?

Should US or even India just fold up, throw up their hands, and hide ourselves under our blankets afraid of venturing out?

We should consider that when things start going, there would be enough chaos created in Pakjab to keep all those who wish to do mischief in Baluchistan from even thinking about it!
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by VikramS »

shiv:

Thank you for the detailed analysis of the birds.

You have to start viewing them as Radar coverage. You will have multiple layers of coverage. And you are not tracking every move.

The interesting thing about Balochistan is that the population is concentrated in a few locations, and the rest of the area is barren. Hence regular population movement will follow some patterns, coinciding with daily activities. Movement of people and livestock will primarily be along the population center. What the birds are looking for is activities which do not fit those pattern. Movement of wild-animals will follow some patterns, and modern software can help eliminate most of the false hits, simply because deliberate human movement will be a lot more structured than wild-animals.

While the hills etc. do provide cover, there are still flat barren stretches. Unlike the past when night provided cover to move, with modern tools, the night does not offer any cover. So even if you hide in the hills during the day, you can not use the cover of darkness to move without your movement raising red flags.

Further you will have layers of coverage. The national birds are one aspect; there are also state and local level birds which can be launched for more detailed investigation. The good thing about these birds is that their operational costs are much low you can have them in numbers.

There are of course going to be failures; some people will get through and cause damage. It will be highly unlikely that TSPA will be able to sneak in the number of people and the support needed to mount anything credible. Afghanistan was a problem because scores of fighters could emerge, fight and melt away. There is nothing like that here; if any by the time the fighters get to a point where they can engage the convoys they will be tired and exhausted just in the effort spent to get there.

Also note that when it comes to the population, the US does not need 100% support. Even if 20% of the population is willing to act as eyes and ears, the game is up since the element of stealth is lost. And given the situation there, I doubt that will be difficult, especially with the right amount of greenbacks.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by VikramS »

shiv:

The TSPA and the FC is in no position to fight the US Army head on.

While Mid-Eat Arab armies are often the butt of jokes in the West, the fact remains that the Iraqi army was battle hardened but scored less than a dozen tank hits in both Gulf Wars.

Since 1971 the TSPA has not fought a battle in uniform. Even in Kargil they disowned their soldiers. They were pant browning during Parakram. They do not stand a chance against the US in the West where they do not have any built-up defenses or canals or other barriers.

The TSPA fights via its Jehadi proxies and irregulars. And they do not stand a chance 500 km from the Indus.

So if and when the US decides to create a "free" West Balochistan, the military obstacles faced are going to be limited. Further holding the land for the tactical and strategic purposes is going to be much less costly than whatever cost they have paid in Iraq/Afghanistan.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by RajeshA »

VikramS ji,

Why do say "Western Baluchistan" and not just "Baluchistan"!

If you want todifferentiate between Iranian Baluschistan and Pakistani Baluchistan, for the latter one would be using "Eastern Baluchistan"!

Or is there some other reason to use "Western Baluchistan"?
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: onanism and haath maalish

Post by Rishirishi »

shiv wrote:
Rishirishi wrote: I am assuming that the US has total air dominance within very short time. First wave to destroy radar and communications facilities. Second wave to take out air defences.
:rotfl: That is what they did to Afghanistan! And look where it got them. If they do it to Pakhanastan the photo ops that Americans have with the smartest military in the world will go, leaving only the Taliban which the Americans have successfully fought in Afghanistan! :roll:

I find this rah rah rah of US military power funny. This thread is yet another avatar of the sentiment "Hey the US military can take out Pakistan in a minute" (....if they wanted to do that. Just like I could have got Angelina Jolie yesterday, but I'm not in the mood) It will never be used against Pakhanastan. All this "air dominance in hours" is rubbish. For once the Pakhanis are correct. Paakistan is no Iraq and even in Iraq air dominance was not achieved in "hours". Oh but the Taliban Air Force was dominated in hours. the Taliban are a defeated force anyway. No?

Air dominance does not win wars no matter which way you cut it.
In Afganistan and Iraq, the idea was to create a new modern state etc. They had to take great care and avoid collateral damage.

But the objective can change. USA does not need to invade TSP. It could be an idea to try to take out the TSP nukes and some of its military capability. Once the TSP generals have lost their key military assets, they may be forced to think change their habits. TSP image is dicy now. It is virtually the only country challenging US military power. Iran and NK may be doing some sable rattling, but they do not support anti US elements like the TSP is doing. No one wants to job of TSP army. Even after a full strike the TSP Army will crave for US support, as it is the only way the army itself will survive.

Obama is in an extraordinary strong position to bomb TSP. He could even get away with nuke trikes (may even be elected as president for that).

As for India, why get involved at all? do we want Indian troops in TSP? NO WAY. We are happy to see them demise by their own lack of foresight. Another pressure that may work is allowing 50K Indian soldiers to guard the TSP/AF border. A lot of the strategic community in US is playing with that idea. Unfortunately India does not have Indra Gandhi at power now. Congress depend on the Muslim vote and they will certainly not like to support any idea that will harm their western brothers.

But all this is besides to point. The whole issue is weather the US actually has the capability to take out most of TSP nukes and its delivery systems?
Last edited by Rishirishi on 24 Oct 2011 03:43, edited 1 time in total.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Cosmo_R »

IMVHO the escalation ladder could look like this:

Stage 1: US uses drones in NWazi and Miranshah in particular, to take out HQNIs. PA responds by blowing up NATO tankers

Stage 2: US moves to use AC-130s against same targets plus 'accidental collateral damage' against PA/IS assets. PA responds with MANPAD distribution in NWazi and Afghanistan

Stage 3: US uses B-52s against 'hostile forces' and clobbering PA/ISI. PA responds by unleashing the Brigandiers with nukes and they wander the countryside with loose nukes and a few find their way to Iran.

Stage 4. US nukes Pakiland vitrifying it, seizes nuke facilities and declares the evil it has help create and nurtured, to have ended. Surviving rapes and rapettes are invited to US to demonstrate US magnanimity in victory.

Stage 5. India is left to deal with prevailing winds and mutants across the border.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by VikramS »

RajeshJi:

My view is purely tactical. What the US needs is a secure route to Afghanistan without having to bribe the TSPA. They want to deal with the least number of people and would like to avoid the Pashtun populated areas near Quetta etc. The Western region provides them with with that solution.

While the route through W. Balochistan covers the TSPA angle very well, it opens the new issue of Iranian interference. I am not sure how well the Iranians will tolerate US presence.

Of course all this is hypothetical about if and when the US decides to push the TSPA. I do assign it a non-zero but low probability. TSPA will typically GUBO once enough pressure is applied.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

VikramS wrote: So if and when the US decides to create a "free" West Balochistan, the military obstacles faced are going to be limited. Further holding the land for the tactical and strategic purposes is going to be much less costly than whatever cost they have paid in Iraq/Afghanistan.
VikramS - this is debatable and I have srong reasons to disagree wit that assessment. But we are talking hypothetical stuff like "Once a man gets on Mars, journeys out of the Solar System should become feasible". In fact that is what they used to say back in the 60s about man on the moon. But I will stop.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: onanism and haath maalish

Post by shiv »

Rishirishi wrote: In Afganistan and Iraq, the idea was to create a new modern state etc. They had to take great care and avoid collateral damage.

But the objective can change. USA does not need to invade TSP. It could be an idea to try to take out the TSP nukes and some of its military capability. Once the TSP generals have lost their key military assets, they may be forced to think change their habits. TSP image is dicy now. It is virtually the only country challenging US military power. Iran and NK may be doing some sable rattling, but they do not support anti US elements like the TSP is doing. No one wants to job of TSP army. Even after a full strike the TSP Army will crave for US support, as it is the only way the army itself will survive.

Obama is in an extraordinary strong position to bomb TSP. He could even get away with nuke trikes (may even be elected as president for that).
In Vietnam the idea was to create a "free" state which means not communist.

The USA cannot take out Pakistani nukes. US sources are very clear that any such attack cannot guarantee that all nukes will be destroyed. Besides that, the US is not afraid that Pakistan will nuke them. They are afraid that enriched Uranium and Pu from a totally failed Paki army will go to the US's other friends like Al Qeeda, Iran and others. The US feels that the Pakistan army is now protecting all that adequately. For that reason the US seeks to protect the Pakistan army.

If teh Pakistan army goes, the US is afraid that the Taliban will take over Pakistan and will be Al Qeeda with nukes. I think Indians have no business bluffing to themselves about US intentions even if we love bluffing ourselves about US strength. The US intention is to try an maintain the current state of affairs where Paki nukes are aimed mainly at India by a Pakistani army that controls them and is friendly with the US. They do not want to remove that army or lose its friendship and face a situation where nuclear material can be used against the US.

That is why Pakistan has the US by the balls. Make no mistake about that.
Last edited by shiv on 24 Oct 2011 06:36, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

Cosmo_R wrote:IMVHO the escalation ladder could look like this:

Stage 1: US uses drones in NWazi and Miranshah in particular, to take out HQNIs. PA responds by blowing up NATO tankers

Stage 2: US moves to use AC-130s against same targets plus 'accidental collateral damage' against PA/IS assets. PA responds with MANPAD distribution in NWazi and Afghanistan

Stage 3: US uses B-52s against 'hostile forces' and clobbering PA/ISI. PA responds by unleashing the Brigandiers with nukes and they wander the countryside with loose nukes and a few find their way to Iran.

Stage 4. US nukes Pakiland vitrifying it, seizes nuke facilities and declares the evil it has help create and nurtured, to have ended. Surviving rapes and rapettes are invited to US to demonstrate US magnanimity in victory.

Stage 5. India is left to deal with prevailing winds and mutants across the border.
Cosmo. I enjoyed that. This thread is the only place where this can happen. We all love to read scenarios where the US uses its awesome power to win a war rather than the nonsense we have been seeing for 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years where the US has "awesome strength" but keeps on pussyfooting with nation after nation, not using that strength to its full potential. The US is never even going to use its full military potential unless the US is attacked directly at home. And no nation on earth is stupid enough to do that.

Angelina Jolie, please call me when you read this message.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Cosmo_R »

@Shiv ^^^: The US is never even going to use its full military potential unless the US is attacked directly at home. And no nation on earth is stupid enough to do that.

Agreed. However, these things should be kept in mind:

1. 'Attack' on homeland does not have to be by a nation. Clinton has already warned about Faisal Shahzad 2.0

2. Attack on a significant American installations overseas such as the 5th Fleet in Bahrain or US forces AFGH with dirty/nukes will trigger a nuke response

3. Anything Iran does :) will trigger a harsh response.

Else, this AfPak thingie will grind on.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4338
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Rudradev »

Nothing nothing nothing.

Even if the next Faisal Shehzad succeeds in blowing up some part of an American metropolis, the Americans won't do anything of import. Sure there will be a lot of news footage depicting Tomahawk phyrr against abandoned compounds, angry talking heads appearing on "Meet The Press", fulminating articles published in every blog and broadsheet.

But when the smoke clears Pakistan will still be there, TSPA will still be there, even the Haqqanis and their buddies in the ISI S-wing will be completely unscathed. And then the "saner voices" will prevail... "boots on ground is too risky... involve China and India and Uzbekistan's cousin-brother's sister-in-law's roommate... resolve Cashmere, oh please we beg you to resolve Cashmere" etc. US junta will fageddaboutit and concentrate on things like the economy, which really matter to them. Sustained, popular 9-11 style outrage to the extent of supporting another war, is a thing of the past.

America does not have the b@lls to do anything to Pakistan under any circumstances short of a JDAM in a US city (and knowing this, TSPA will always stop short of a JDAM.) This is mainly because America does not have the capability to pressure the TSPA in any meaningful way. Given the lack of means to effective retribution, red-lines very quickly become no-lines.

Today the situation is such that even the limited leverage America does have (revoke visas to RAPE, prevent children of Jernails from studying in US univs, freeze bank accounts of Jernails overseas etc.)is seen more as *endangering assets for America* than imposing liabilities on Pakistan. These visa/univ/bank-account favours are seen in Washington as the last remaining incentives that America can offer the ruling establishment in TSP to secure any cooperation at all. If America withdraws them it will have played the last puny cards in its tired old hand.

At present the US has no strike options in Pakistan worth more than a :rotfl:
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: onanism and haath maalish

Post by Rishirishi »

The USA cannot take out Pakistani nukes. US sources are very clear that any such attack cannot guarantee that all nukes will be destroyed. Besides that, the US is not afraid that Pakistan will nuke them. They are afraid that enriched Uranium and Pu from a totally failed Paki army will go to the US's other friends like Al Qeeda, Iran and others. The US feels that the Pakistan army is now protecting all that adequately. For that reason the US seeks to protect the Pakistan army.

If teh Pakistan army goes, the US is afraid that the Taliban will take over Pakistan and will be Al Qeeda with nukes. I think Indians have no business bluffing to themselves about US intentions even if we love bluffing ourselves about US strength. The US intention is to try an maintain the current state of affairs where Paki nukes are aimed mainly at India by a Pakistani army that controls them and is friendly with the US. They do not want to remove that army or lose its friendship and face a situation where nuclear material can be used against the US.

That is why Pakistan has the US by the balls. Make no mistake about that
This has been the established school of thought. But a dogs tail is and will always remain bent. Now Unkil has started to realize that TSP has no intentions to pack up the jehadis. In sted TSP is trying to wear out the americans in AF, so that they finally leave and TSP can use its jehadi elements to gain control over AF. For the US this means all its efforts have gone to waste. In comes Russia and China. Both of whom know very well the implications of a taliban controlled AF. US is not going to leave AF.

The question is how US is going to deal with the situation. Hence my question. What options do the amrikis have and can they actually bomb their way out of the problems, with massive WW2 type of mass bombardment.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Cosmo_R »

Rudradev wrote:Nothing nothing nothing.

At present the US has no strike options in Pakistan worth more than a :rotfl:
So why worry? Neither do we. Let's do the same or more of it. The pakis win, they've got it all figured out.

Checkmate.

Let's walk the 'High Road of Peace' (or surrender) as Jaswant Singh in his trademark orotund-speak (2001) opined and be done with it.

IOW, if the mighty USA can/won't do it. Neither will we SDRE (choose your food group) surrender monkeys.

Is that what you're counseling or have I missed the point? I mean I'll accept your view....

Think about it. If those with the ball$ and capability won't do it. How will we, bereft of both means and leaders with ball$ be expected to do it?

Or do we grow cojones, a messy non-theoretical effort?

Clarity needed. Inquiring minds want to know...
AnantD
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 04 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Aurora, Illinois, USA

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by AnantD »

I believe that atleast 1/2 the blame for this TSP nuke scenario lies with India, the other half with the CIA. Dragon is doing what they are expected to, so no blame there.

India should have knocked out or let anyone else (Juice?) do it in the 80's early 90's instead of signing mutual agreements with TSP about not attacking their nuke plants. Too late now to do anything unilaterally, without a heavy cost, and it isn't going to improve on its own.

Best India can do today is support the US in any way take this curse of a nation and its nukes out of action, instead of harping on US evil designs. Makes TSP no better than us when they harp about evil Hindoo designs. One window was in 2001 but we wanted to sit and watch instead. Many kaluchaks' mumbai, varanasi, jaipur, pune etc. later, we are still watching!

Dragon can keep threatening but they will always back-stab TSP, absolutely no question about it.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

AnantD wrote:
Best India can do today is support the US in any way
India must support the US in "any way"? How? In what ways can India support the US?

We are already negotiating with Pakistan despite all the Kaluchaks and Mumbais to help take the pressure off Pakistan so they can fight the Taliban.

The US wants us to reach agreements with Pakistan about Kashmir and we are talking with them about that and more. Trade. Water sharing. Visas. Cultural exchanges.

What else can we do. Are you too suggesting that India should hand over Kashmir? Aren't we helping the US in every which way? What other ways do you think India can help the US?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by shiv »

Cosmo_R wrote: Think about it. If those with the ball$ and capability won't do it. How will we, bereft of both means and leaders with ball$ be expected to do it?
<snip>
Clarity needed. Inquiring minds want to know...
Awareness is the first step towards wisdom. You got it exactly right there. Those with balls and capability will not do it. Indian surrender monkeys will not do it either. That is the fundamental truth. Once we swallow this fact, we start seeing what is actually happening in this world.

It certainly is time for inquiring minds to go into overdrive. If war to destroy Pakistan is not going to happen what is left?

1. Agree to all of Pakistan's demands: Pakistan would like that. That would be worst for India. It would be OK for the US. But the US does not have the balls to attack India either :rotfl: . So the US cannot force India to do anything


2. Agree to some of Pakistan's demands: This is what has been going on so far. the nation with balls and capability, the USA has had the balls and capability to give Pakistan almost anything that it demands. That is about as far as US balls and capability goes. But the US has been unable to force India to give into Pakistan's demands

3. Agree to none of Pakistan's demands:This is what is required. Would you be able to summarize what the nation with "balls and capability" has done for the last 10 years when it comes to "not agreeing with any of Pakistan's demands" ?

You see as long as we imagine that the USA has strong options with regard to Pakistan we come up only with questions that inquiring minds are unable to understand. Once you se that the US does not have the balls or capability to take on Pakistan, that option is removed and we need not talk about it at all.

The USA, the nation with balls and capability does not have the balls and capability to take on Pakistan.
India the nation of surrender monkeys does not have the balls and capability to take on Pakistan.

We need to swallow that and move on. We are stuck at thinking that the US can do something and is going to do something. That is rubbish. Better get used to it.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4338
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: US strike options on TSP

Post by Rudradev »

Cosmo R,

I'm not trying to offer any counsel. I'm merely pointing out that, as far as I can see, the US has no strike options in TSP that are worth $hite.

Something to consider.

The last time US "Strike Options" (as we understand it, the use of overwhelming conventional military force) were key to winning a major war, was during Gulf War I. The Iraqi army took a beating that forced them to withdraw from Kuwait.

Other than that the role played by "Strike Options" in any of America's wars has been supportive of some other (primary) means at best, and an inconclusive waste of resources at worst.

The Balkan wars were won primarily because Russia was diplomatically pressured to abandon its support for Yugoslavia. With the Russians on board the Serbs would have gone on fighting indefinitely.

The Iraq and Libya wars were won primarily by bribery. More on that here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1183170

Hell, even in Gulf War I, many idiot Neocons wanted GHW Bush to carry on into Iraq and military support various Shi'a factions that were apparently in rebellion there. He was wise enough not to do any such thing. No groundwork had been prepared for bribery or political devices to be employed. Iraqi forces that had thought it better to leave Kuwait than face PGMs day in and day out, would have been very differently motivated if US troops had crossed the border to attack their own country.

The whole made-for-TV Strike Option stuff gives a calculated impression that America is invincible, and by extension, that these sort of assets and activities are key to America's victory or defeat in the wars it fights. They certainly bring a certain amount of pressure on the enemy, mainly in terms of morale; but that alone has not been enough to secure complete military victory since 1991.

For that matter, America's employment of these vaunted Strike Options hasn't guaranteed victory even when combined with other strategies. In Iraq, after eight years of bitter counterinsurgency, they are leaving behind a Maliki government that is busily ingratiating itself with the Iran-Syria axis. In Afghanistan, the less said the better for America's H&D. What will their Strike Options avail them in Pakistan?

In short: "mighty US" being able to achieve war aims solely by punching out other nations is a myth, and has been one for the past twenty years.

The credit must go to the other side of the War on Terror, the one that is never seen and never heard about except on those rare occasions when it almost fails. Operation Enduring Freedom is a sideshow. The real war is the war that DHS, CIA and FBI have been waging, patiently, persistently, and unglamorously for all these years.

That war, the intelligence war, is where America's capabilities have really shown themselves in a fantastically impressive light. Extreme vigilance, rigorous analysis, the organization and cultivation of networks, the constant and precise allocation and re-allocation of personnel and assets... these are the things that have prevented another 9-11 from happening in the United States. And that IS something to admire.

We often make the mistake of thinking that "drones" are a part of the bang-bang-shoot-shoot "Strike Options" of the United States. They are far more than that. They are the visible business end of that invisible war.

What is amazing is the winnowing of valuable information from a mind-boggling expanse of data collected from myriad sources, the collation of that information and the timely decision-making which enables an effective response. People in the US waterboard some Paki who planned to blow up the D.C. subway and elicit Data Point A. At some other time, CIA operatives working deep-cover in Pakistan come up with Data Point B from their contacts, developed perhaps in Guantanamo bay years before. ELINT eavesdropping of ISI communications produces Data Point C. Meanwhile, Pakistani security forces are interrogating some Abdul from the TTP; they share some but not all information with the US, but among what they happen to share is Data Point D.

Data Points A,B,C,D may be collected at disparate times by completely different teams of operatives. They are far-flung drops in a veritable ocean of information that rises and goes out with the tide every day. Yet somehow, these unique A,B,C and D are identified, put together, and a reasonable degree of confidence is acquired that some person known by certain names, playing a certain role, is likely to be at a certain place on certain date. And on that date, at that place, a drone takes the guy out.

Now that is how to fight a war. That is how the Americans are fighting their war. To fight their war in this way they have had to make huge investments of time, effort and money... planting operatives, building networks of informants, turning enemy agents, buying out some elements of ISI and TSPA and Paki Police while hedging against the betrayal of others, and many many other things.

If America uses its Strike Options on TSP... the whole vastly intricate, highly delicate mechanism on which this hidden war on terror is predicated... becomes jeopardized. Yes, this mechanism is already operating in a dangerous and hostile environment... and some developments, like the Davis affair or the expulsion of known CIA operatives from Pakistan, make that environment even more deadly.

Yet it continues to function; yet, for all the dangers and risks, drones are able to fly out of Shamsi and take out members of the opposition, and not one terrorist attack has struck the US homeland since 9/11.

If you were the POTUS... how much would the continuing effective operation of that mechanism be worth to you?

You know that by going into hot war against Pakistan... the ONE thing you have which definitely works, stands a very good chance of being permanently disrupted by unpredictable, catastrophic events. ISI will be more vigilant against ELINT. Your contacts and informers will either be angry at the sight of B1s pulverizing their neighbourhoods, or will be too scared of being uncovered and shot by wartime TSPA. Somebody might be killed, something might be blown up, some place might become useless that are all valuable and irreplaceable cogs in your mechanism.

Do you risk this for the sake of 5, 10, 50 or 100 US soldiers killed by Haqqani strikes? Do you risk it if the mechanism fails once (with a Faisal Shahzad 2.0)? Is that worth the likelihood that it may succeed the next time, and every time after that?

I don't think you can afford to.
Post Reply