Pakistan Discussion Thread

[Vilander]

10 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

In the 60s and 70s, USA could redraw national boundaries, call the shots on various disputes without going to war and even had a military draft in place. It also had many more dependable allies. Today, conscription in the USA seems highly improbable. Nations left, right and centre ignore US diktaats. The US simply isn't able to project that kind of power anymore.

Re: Appetite for war. The war on terror and the subsequent invasion of Iraq were wars that mattered to the American people. It wasn't Libya or Nicaragua. But the outcome hasn't been US control. They quite lost the plot there. Given that they outsource most of the on ground fighting to people they think are expendable, why do you think the US population would have that appetite. Unless the US has an existential threat, which is quite unlikely.

As an analogy, the US is the bulky uncle around the corner. Its more fat than muscle. No doubt it can develop that sinewy physique again. But it seems very unlikely. 

so in effect because US is fat now and does not have the sinewy physique of Hrithik Roshan you are agreeing with what the pak diplomat says. ok.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

In the 60s and 70s, USA could redraw national boundaries, call the shots on various disputes without going to war and even had a military draft in place. It also had many more dependable allies. Today, conscription in the USA seems highly improbable. Nations left, right and centre ignore US diktaats. The US simply isn't able to project that kind of power anymore.

Re: Appetite for war. The war on terror and the subsequent invasion of Iraq were wars that mattered to the American people. It wasn't Libya or Nicaragua. But the outcome hasn't been US control. They quite lost the plot there. Given that they outsource most of the on ground fighting to people they think are expendable, why do you think the US population would have that appetite. Unless the US has an existential threat, which is quite unlikely.

As an analogy, the US is the bulky uncle around the corner. Its more fat than muscle. No doubt it can develop that sinewy physique again. But it seems very unlikely. 

I'd argue that war on terror is NOT as important to the US citizens as WWI or WWII were, for we see that evidenced in the national appetite for war, as well as their congressional & senatorial policies. They did not change their economic order for war (war economy) as they did with WWII. 

There are two scenarios where US would have such an appetite for war: 

a) existential threat

b) Being eclipsed decisively by an antagonistic power. 

 

If you think that US would do nothing and China would happily keep chugging along to overtake US in economic, military and political power, assuming that China sounded like N.Korea (antagonistic towards USA), then you'd be very mistaken.

 

The US population expects the US military machine to utterly crush the terrorists without suffering any noticeable casualty. Thus, they are overly picky over involvement & effect. If they were under the impression that THEY have to participate in this fight like they did vs Hitler, the outcome would be quite different.

When a surgeon conducts surgery, he stops to put a band-aid on his hand when he cuts himself. When the same guys is swinging fists in the middle of a bar fight, he doesnt walk away after suffering the same tiny cut.

A more apt analogy would be US is that uncle who got to be king and had everything he wanted, now he is spending all his free time in the harem, having sex with countless beautiful women, drinking the finest wine, smoking the finest ganja and being super-hedonistic. He is bored with day-to-day squabbles between his nephews but still is the most powerful man on the planet. If you can find a reason to piss him off bad enough, he will kill you in 10 seconds, but he is super distracted and super-bored with mundane shit to care.

 

[mishra]

On 7 October 2016 at 8:27 PM, Muloghonto said:

Militarily the gap has closed. Air forces of China/Russia/India have superior non-stealth air dominance fighters than the US and they are on the verge of incorporating stealth fighters. 
China and India have both closed the gap a little bit more in the naval power projection capabilities, though the gulf remains huge. 

Anyways, in today's world, military power takes a distinct backseat to economic power, if one has both. Most influence is wielded via economy,especially in sectors where you don't want war, such as in the persian gulf for eg. 

US is a slowly declining power at the moment, but it has lost a significant chunk of the 'world's power' pie, mostly due to rise of others.

 

Absolutely emphatically NO. Let me try to give one example. In Syria and regions surrounding it.  Russia has deployed s-400, s-300. Still it took a hit on one fighter jet and did nothing. Then recently Americans bombed Assad forces, russia did nothing. You know the reason, Russia hasnt Ever engaged/ shot even 1 US drone (forget jet). Why? Masssive number mismatch.

 Number of Russian fighter jet in region= around 40

Number of American fighter jets im region=around 250 Yes 250 american++NATO jets.

Forget Chinese or Indians, they are still far ahead of Russia.

 

Sooner rather than later, i think US will completely give up its production of jets and stealth plsnes and start relying on satelite snd drones.

Economically,  they have one competetor, and that is Europe. Turmoil like Greece debt crisis only helps to make $ even more respected. As long as oil is traded in dollars, their is no threat to their economic Superiority.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, mishra said:

Absolutely emphatically NO. Let me try to give one example. In Syria and regions surrounding it.  Russia has deployed s-400, s-300. Still it took a hit on one fighter jet and did nothing. Then recently Americans bombed Assad forces, russia did nothing. You know the reason, Russia hasnt Ever engaged/ shot even 1 US drone (forget jet). Why? Masssive number mismatch.

 Number of Russian fighter jet in region= around 40

Number of American fighter jets im region=around 250 Yes 250 american++NATO jets.

Forget Chinese or Indians, they are still far ahead of Russia.

 

Sooner rather than later, i think US will completely give up its production of jets and stealth plsnes and start relying on satelite snd drones.

Economically,  they have one competetor, and that is Europe. Turmoil like Greece debt crisis only helps to make $ even more respected. As long as oil is traded in dollars, their is no threat to their economic Superiority.

 

I don't see how this disagrees with what i am saying.

To put it in perspective, lets give arbitrary figures to convey what i mean:

Lets say Indian military is rated 100/1,000. China would be 250/1000. Russia would be 350/1000. USA would be 999/1000. That is the disparity.

Lets say Indian power is growing at 2% per annum, China's power is growing at 5% per annum, Russia's is growing at 2% per annum and US is declining by 0.05% per annum. 

In this scenario, what you are saying is also accommodated.

 

[mishra]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't see how this disagrees with what i am saying.

To put it in perspective, lets give arbitrary figures to convey what i mean:

Lets say Indian military is rated 100/1,000. China would be 250/1000. Russia would be 350/1000. USA would be 999/1000. That is the disparity.

Lets say Indian power is growing at 2% per annum, China's power is growing at 5% per annum, Russia's is growing at 2% per annum and US is declining by 0.05% per annum. 

In this scenario, what you are saying is also accommodated.

 

Your assumption has flaws. Here are some facts.

US defense budget is 1/3rd of World's defense budget. Now If you put NATO as ally/puppet/buyer of US then that budget gets even bigger. On top it Sauds/pakistanis and rest are buying their outdated hardware. All of the money is going into development of most modern weapons.

 Consider there is a bank which has given 1 mortgage of say 100K at 5% per APR and 5 personnel loans of a range say $1000 -$10,000 at a rate of say 10%-15% range.

 

Despite double the interest, You will see At the end of year, they are making more money from their mortgage investment. Same is true in defense technology terms as expense for US is far to much.

This scenario is more closer to reality and what you are saying about other nations is accommodated. I am attaching a page for you to understand why I equated US+Nato spending in terms of 100K mortgage

Edited October 11, 2016 by mishra

[mishra]

^ Also in that figure, It looks Chines budget is big, But in reality, Most of money has gone to Russia for S-400 and Sukhoi

[Muloghonto]

11 hours ago, mishra said:

Your assumption has flaws. Here are some facts.

US defense budget is 1/3rd of World's defense budget. Now If you put NATO as ally/puppet/buyer of US then that budget gets even bigger. On top it Sauds/pakistanis and rest are buying their outdated hardware. All of the money is going into development of most modern weapons.

 Consider there is a bank which has given 1 mortgage of say 100K at 5% per APR and 5 personnel loans of a range say $1000 -$10,000 at a rate of say 10%-15% range.

 

Despite double the interest, You will see At the end of year, they are making more money from their mortgage investment. Same is true in defense technology terms as expense for US is far to much.

This scenario is more closer to reality and what you are saying about other nations is accommodated. I am attaching a page for you to understand why I equated US+Nato spending in terms of 100K mortgage

Arrey baba, what i am saying does not disagree with any of what you are saying- atleast from what i am understanding ( i do not understand 100k mortgage stuff). 

You are correct in saying Uncle Sam is the clear-cut top dog. No arguments. But if you look at the inertia of the various militaries, governments, budgets, etc. the overall share of the pie is shrinking. It won't matter in our lifetimes or for atleast another 50-100 years, but if the trend continues, in a century US will no longer be the top dog. That is all i am saying.

 

[G_B_]

Dont think they are declining, its just that post 90s when a void was created with collapse of the soviet union China is rising in a position to make the world multi polar again

[G_B_]

Its also interesting to note that Pakistan are moving away from USA to china. Their military I think eventually will become all chinese. 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Its also interesting to note that Pakistan are moving away from USA to china. Their military I think eventually will become all chinese. 

They need to become someones client state.Thats how they operate.With Americans and Arabs moving away from them they are now latching onto China.Thinking China is a counter to America.

Also they have started to believe they will get Russian support.Well they can dream on that.

Pakistan by openly blackmailing US with these statements have shown how desperate they are and how low they can get.

Dont think they are declining, its just that post 90s when a void was created with collapse of the soviet union China is rising in a position to make the world multi polar again

China cant be a soviet union.They simply have too many issues in their neighbourhood.They lack allys and military alliances.Their military tech is untested and their entire economy is based on maufacturing for the EU.

[sourab10forever]

Not a single Pak city has a metro railway. Lahore metro is still under construction and a case is going on against it for being hazardous to environment.

 

In comparison 8 indian cities have metro and 8 more are under construction.

[Adi_91]

I am sure our beloved brothers from the NW won't care about Metro rail when they have terrorists roaming freely in their metros spreading hatred against India.

[Texy]

Why is Pakistan our benchmark? 

 

Look at China and its infrastructure. In last 20 years, China has invested and built roads, rail, air strips, national parks, dams. Their cities are unrecognizable. And look at India. 

[velu]

but they will get  CPEC

 

[zen]

Pak has nukes and every other Pak feels strong because of it and proudly shouts "Bombs, Bombs" as a solution to any problem

 

 

[sourab10forever]

2 hours ago, Texy said:

Why is Pakistan our benchmark? 

 

Look at China and its infrastructure. In last 20 years, China has invested and built roads, rail, air strips, national parks, dams. Their cities are unrecognizable. And look at India. 

Not seeing them as benchmark...just saying. 

 

[Sandeep99]

Has this surprised anyone? 

[cric_fan]

And?

[CG]

Why is Pakistan our benchmark? 

 

Look at China and its infrastructure. In last 20 years, China has invested and built roads, rail, air strips, national parks, dams. Their cities are unrecognizable. And look at India. 

Yes and many of them are ghost towns.

[Sajid_Rana]

17 hours ago, sourab10forever said:

Not a single Pak city has a metro railway. Lahore metro is still under construction and a case is going on against it for being hazardous to environment.

 

In comparison 8 indian cities have metro and 8 more are under construction.

Only small part of it is under dispute not because of hazardous to environment but being too close to historic sites of Lahore. India has more metros but we have better motorways.