WHy and how will the US “join in”.
AK84 What really concerns me is that the Pakistani military would pull it’s troops from Taliban duty to Indian duty, and we’d be stuck having no choice but to invade Pakistan’s sovereignty while the western provinces threaten to breakaway because the military is no longer present and the US has a greater strength there than Pakistan. Also if this comes to a head it will be because India is convinced that the terrorist attacks were at the hands of the ISI, putting Pakistan’s government on the wrong side of the War on Terra. Meaning that we would be allied with India against Pakistan almost by default. So all the troops from Iraq would have to be sent to Pakistan, while Pakistan threatens to become a failed state that disintegrates into tribal regions that have access to nuclear weapons. And there is where your nuclear problem becomes a bit more sinister.
The US is already there fighting the Taliban in the West. We make regular incursions into Pakistani territory. Obama has promised, the only hawkish promise he made was to invade Pakistan if the government lost control. The Pakistani forces will leave the border with Afghanistan to fight India and we will no longer be able to depend on Pakistan as a partner in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
If the Pakistan Army leaves the western border, the US and NATO forces will go back to their bases in Afghanistan and hum until the situation sorts out. Like they did in 2002. Most of the supplies come through Pakistan, there is precious little the US or anyone else can do if that tap stops.
Maybe, I think it might be a bit different. It would be interesting if Obama started cutting deals with Iran, who incidentally were the first to help us after 9/11. We’ll see how it works out. I can see the US and Pakistan being irrevocably placed on opposite sides on this one. Hopefully you’re right, or even more hopefully, India and Pakistan will resolve this without fighting.
The USA and USSR, with the help of a few other nation states, detonated roughly a hundred, if not HUNDREDS of above ground nukes in tests in the past…often pretty high yield suckers…not to mention the thermonuclear ones…with no obvious bad effects…
Sure, it taint healthy…but if thats got you worried, second hand transfatty acid fumes from fast food places should have you quaking in your boots.
Just a semi educated opinion mind you…
Cutting a deal with Iran? That is completely ridiculous, there is one road from Iran to S Afghanistan, it goes through territory that is Taliban controlled, and not even contested by NATO. This is of course considering that Iran would suddenly change its mind and go against its very strategic aims.
Please people consult a map.
There is no way the US can undertake an operation in Afghanistan without Pakistani support and consent, short of conquering Pakistan.
Some of this gets into the real of the old Wargamer axium: “Paper soldiers never die”. In table top games and in poorly programmed simulations, units fight on well after their real life counterparts would break and run. It’s pretty much a joke in Dungeons & Dragons and other RPGs that no enemy ever runs away. They fight until they’re dead, regardless of how hopeless the fight, how badly they’re outmatched, how easy it would be for them to run away and live to fight another day. Hell, even players do this with their own characters.
The other side of that is that the Leaders don’t have the same tools in simulations to see that their army is broken and retreating. It doesn’t necessarily happen. So they don’t know when they’ve lost the battle.
But even if they’ve improved the simulations and they do know they’ve lost, there is a tendency in simulations to “push the button”, to refuse to admit defeat, and escalate the conflict in ways that one would seriously step back from and contemplate deeply in real life. After all, it’s just an exercise, it’s just paper/electron soldiers, let’s see what happens!
On other aspects of this situation, I think it’s silly to imagine that this gives the terrorists another target. Um, Clue #1 is that this was a terror plot against India. They’re already targets, and were before this happened. If anything, this gives Pakistan one more reason, one more point of pressure, to attempt to get it’s shit together and gain control of the tribal areas where these nutjobs hang out. Up to now, they’ve been turning a blind eye to a lot of it and saying that they can’t afford to piss off too many of their own people. But now it’s becoming clear that allowing this sort of thing in their territory is a direct threat not only to their government, but the existence of their state.
We’ve kissed and made up in Uzbekistan and we have tentative agreements with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in the event that Pakistan becomes a problem. It will be more tricky but I don’t believe we are utterly dependent upon the situation in Pakistan.
If pakistan jumps the gun and goes pre-emptive with its nukes, do we have the moral right to interfere with india going all out to conquer and annex the former nation of pakistan.
Declan
Right, and I was thinking of flyover rights from Iran, not land routes. Besides, the US military can pave roads. Not that I am saying they would.
What do we do if Pakistan’s military pulls out of that region though?
Pakistan wouldn’t exist anymore, and would have about 40% of its prior population, and that’s an optimistic estimate. That would occur before the phone finished ringing for diplomatic reasons. I wouldn’t be surprised if India purged it’s Muslim population and pushed into Pakistan.
To the people saying that nukes aren’t a big deal, I give you massive worldwide ozone loss: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5307.abstract
I’m not saying it isn’t a big deal, I am saying it overshadows the other possible calamities that can come about besides the nukes.
OMG NUKES!
Umm…no one is firing nukes but Pakistanis and Indians are shelling Kashmir
OMG NUKES!
Umm people are dying by being shot.
OMG NUKES!
Here is a something I’ve always wondered about.
Say two countries have a “limited” nuclear exhange, whoever they are.
Would the rest of world REALLY go “oh how horrible! lets help you both rebuild ect ect…” and actually follow up with REAL help?
Or would there be more along the lines of hollow words of sympathy for one or both sides?
Or would it even go so far as “dumb idgits…stupid is as stupid does”?
Sadly, I fear I will find out the answer to this before I die…
Errr yea you are, if it was that simple, than those contingencys would have been used years ago. The issue is simple; sea power, three of those countries are land locked, Geogia has no direct links. Air lift capacity cannot provide but 1/100th of what sea based supply line dose. Right now the NATO supply line goes from Pakistani ports in Karachi, Omara, Gwader, Port Bin Qasim and Somani, up the Indus Highway, through the Khyabar Pass, into Afghanistan. The thousands of tonnes of materials that that supply line provides can never be replaced by airlift, even with the US air lift capability.
AK84 Do you really think the US is going to say, “Oh well, I guess we can’t fight Al Qaeda since we can’t get our material in there. Let’s just give up and go home.”?
If Pakistan goes pre-emtive with its nukes India won’t exist anymore either.
Not hardly. India can absorb one hell of a lot more damage than Pakistan can. If it goes nuclear, Pakistan will be a glow-in-the-dark desert, while India will be back to current population levels within 10 years, with little drop in production.