# Pakistan's response to Abbottabad's raid?



## mike_cos (May 23, 2011)

Hey mates, what about decision of Pakistan to open Gwadar port at chinese Navy...? India and US are not happy I suppose....

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistan-port-gwadar-to-become-chinese.html

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3914bd...er=http://silendo.splinder.com/#axzz1N4ZhpXyq


----------



## Servimus (May 23, 2011)

I'm surprised there haven't been more inroads between Pakistan and China. China is a natural ally of Pakistan, seeing as China is no big fan of India either.


----------



## mike_cos (May 23, 2011)

Probably they read Patrick Robinson's book "USS Shark"... LOL


----------



## QC (May 23, 2011)

The Chinese spread their tentacles wide and far. There will be more like this.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 23, 2011)

I'm surprised this hasn't happened earlier considering the close ties they've had for the last 15+ years.


----------



## RetPara (May 23, 2011)

Pakistan is extremely paranoid about India.  They sucking up to China to counter-balance what they fear is a closer alignment of the US to India.  Didn't India and China have a short violent confrontation in the 60's/70's?


----------



## Servimus (May 23, 2011)

RetPara said:


> Pakistan is extremely paranoid about India. They sucking up to China to counter-balance what they fear is a closer alignment of the US to India. Didn't India and China have a short violent confrontation in the 60's/70's?


Yeah, they did. Border disputes. I think it was just a small conflict, not sure.

I guess you can say Pakistan is paranoid about India, but it's not exactly without reason. Large nuclear armed state with an incredibly powerful military on your border- constantly high tensions. I'd be paranoid too.


----------



## RetPara (May 23, 2011)

Well hell they've only been standing toe to toe over the Kashmir for a couple of generations.  They both have nukes.  They hate each others dominant religions....   Paranoid?


----------



## Servimus (May 23, 2011)

I get what you're saying. I agree that they're trying to counter US-India relations and maybe just trying to rub our face in the mud for the Osama hit. That's a dangerous game they're playing though. We give them a lot of money in aid....


----------



## AWP (May 23, 2011)

I wouldn't hesitate to back India.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 23, 2011)

Pakistan's response to the UBL raid?  Here's part of it:

https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/significant-attack-in-pakistan.10280/#post-145968


----------



## Servimus (May 23, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Pakistan's response to the UBL raid? Here's part of it:
> 
> https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/significant-attack-in-pakistan.10280/#post-145968


That's one way to fix the damaged image of the Pakistani military.


----------



## Scotth (May 23, 2011)

What are you going to do about it? Unfortunately we need Pakistan more than they need us. Unless people want to take over Pakistan you have to tolerate them until the troops are either removed from Afghanistan or significantly reduced to the point that we can resupply by air only.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 23, 2011)

I don’t know why we can’t simply work a deal with China to allow our supplies to flow into Afghanistan, also why not bring China into the ball game in Afghanistan? I know it sounds crazy and China historically would not go for this, but with the supposed new relationship between the US MIL and Chinese MIL it would only make since. Fuck Pakistan, maybe we could work some format of a deal to allow China to roll the Paki’s up? This would allow us to take a closer look at the true capabilities of the Chinese military.

Just thinking way outside the box here….lol


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

1. Taiwan.
2. The China/Afghanistan border is only a tiny sliver.
3. China won't roll Pakistan in any way or form.


----------



## mike_cos (May 24, 2011)

RetPara said:


> ... Paranoid?



Paranoid!! I'very sorry boys... I know I'm off topic with this post.. but this word for me is irresistible...


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

RetPara said:


> Pakistan is extremely paranoid about India. They sucking up to China to counter-balance what they fear is a closer alignment of the US to India. Didn't India and China have a short violent confrontation in the 60's/70's?



The China/Pakistan thing has been going on for nearly 30 years. Would you believe it was set up by the US?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> 1. Taiwan. I thought we already decided not assist Taiwan with arms sales? What would Taiwan have to do with allowing us to use the China/Afghan port?
> 2. The China/Afghanistan border is only a tiny sliver. Big enough to get convoys through and thats all we need.
> 3. China won't roll Pakistan in any way or form. Maybe, but Pakistan is just as much a threat being unstable to China as to India.



Good points, but again I am looking at it way outside of the norm here. I think it would allow China to show some military power, put their "global power" hat on and allow us to get a good idea on our relations with China, also again allowing us to check out their capability.

But I would agree it will probably not ever happend.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 24, 2011)

JAB said:


> I don’t know why we can’t simply work a deal with China to allow our supplies to flow into Afghanistan, also why not bring China into the ball game in Afghanistan? I know it sounds crazy and China historically would not go for this, but with the supposed new relationship between the US MIL and Chinese MIL it would only make since. Fuck Pakistan, maybe we could work some format of a deal to allow China to roll the Paki’s up? This would allow us to take a closer look at the true capabilities of the Chinese military.
> 
> Just thinking way outside the box here….lol



Geography- the land border between AFG and China is in the extreme northeast of AFG; you'd still have to get the goods up to that part of the country, which IIRC is extremely mountainous.  It would be very expensive, plus you'd have a much longer logistics trail to secure.  Then once you get into AFG, you have to get all that stuff south to where it needs to go.

Politics- why would they help us?  They're quite happy to repress the Uighurs and profit from the rebuilding effort and the minerals extraction.


----------



## Servimus (May 24, 2011)

JAB said:


> Good points, but again I am looking at it way outside of the norm here. I think it would allow China to show some military power, put their "global power" hat on and allow us to get a good idea on our relations with China, also again allowing us to check out their capability.
> 
> But I would agree it will probably not ever happend.


China isn't really in to the "global power" game, as you put it.They might have border disputes, but they tend to keep their military within their borders or not far from it. I'd say the most provocative stuff they've done with their military has been the recent moves by their Navy in the South China Sea, trying to exert their influence in an oil-rich area claimed by many nations.

As long as the Taliban(s) aren't messing with China, I think they'll stay out of the area. Pakistan is a bigger threat to India because the people destabilizing Pakistan are fundamentalist militant nutjobs- they're the ones who've been fighting in Kashmir since they got back from beating the Soviets. If they took power in Pakistan, India would have a big reason to be worried. Have these groups ever threatened China? Not sure.

I think we're still supplying Taiwan. I remember last year the PLA getting pissed that the deal went through and they told us they would never call us again, or something like that.


----------



## AWP (May 24, 2011)

Servimus said:


> China isn't really in to the "global power" game, as you put it.They might have border disputes, but they tend to keep their military within their borders or not far from it. I'd say the most provocative stuff they've done with their military has been the recent moves by their Navy in the South China Sea, trying to exert their influence in an oil-rich area claimed by many nations.



I disagree with this paragraph. The Chinese are flexing their muscles economically and their lack of a global military presence is due to a lack of equipment. Carriers, mid-air refueling, subs, a true blue water navy....China is set up to be what I'd call a "super regional" military in that their influence extends little beyond their immediate area, but they are finally flexing a little with the recent deployment of ships to the Horn of Africa.

You take their manpower and economic base and add some military upgrades (Navy and aviation) they are currently pursuing and I think you'll see China as a true superpower in about 20 years. I think it would be in our best interests to support India to offset this, both militarily and economically. Yeah, Pakistan nukes and our logistical lifeline to Afghanistan, but in the grand scheme of things, 10+ years down the road, Pakistan shouldn't be a concern. Their influence over us is short term. The country is really the Seminole Indians of Asia, the leftovers of humanity who managed to make a country out of the deal. Give them the Hard Rock New Mumbai and tell them thanks for playing Global Politics.


----------



## Servimus (May 24, 2011)

And in 20 years I think we'll all be seeing China doing more of that flexing. For now, as you said, they've mostly confined themselves to their immediate region. I think they're incentive to push outwards in the future, especially in those oil-rich contested islands, will be the heavy demand of their manpower. That's a virtue and a vice. They're going to need to sustain themselves, and in the long run that's impossible without expansion.

I'm with you on India and Pakistan. That is India deserves our support to offset the Chinese, however just like Pakistan hasn't been playing ball and sending their military to the NW provinces due to their fear of moving troops away from India, India might not want to poke the dragon due to their immediate threat- Pakistan. Pakistan might not be our long term problem, but India will beg to differ. Also- Pakistan's government is and has always been weak. If these Islamist fundamentalists who largely support the Taliban get power in the Pakistani gov, then Pakistan could turn into a long term threat.


----------



## Scotth (May 24, 2011)

In the future I'm not sure your going to see a big Chinese projection of military power around the world.  I think they will continue to export military hardware and develop strategic partnership but the Chinese have some limiting factors as well.  First, China is a huge land mass with huge borders that need to be guarded.  They have the Japanese on one side and the Russian on another plus India and a host of smaller countries.  All those borders require planes, tanks and manpower to guard before they can even think about projecting power around the world.

China is an economic threat and a technological threat but I don't think they have the same cold war aspiration that the Russian's had with projecting power.  They have to much going on just trying to protect the home front.  Even as they grow economically they will also have huge social problems and needs to support at home and with the size of there population those cost will be huge.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

JAB said:


> Good points, but again I am looking at it way outside of the norm here. I think it would allow China to show some military power, put their "global power" hat on and allow us to get a good idea on our relations with China, also again allowing us to check out their capability.
> 
> But I would agree it will probably not ever happend.



Sorry, I'm not Inception, I can't quote within a quote within a quote 

The big thing about Taiwan isn't the arms themselves (though that's a major consideration) but rather the recognition of Taiwan as a state.



Scotth said:


> In the future I'm not sure your going to see a big Chinese projection of military power around the world. I think they will continue to export military hardware and develop strategic partnership but the Chinese have some limiting factors as well. First, China is a huge land mass with huge borders that need to be guarded. They have the Japanese on one side and the Russian on another plus India and a host of smaller countries. All those borders require planes, tanks and manpower to guard before they can even think about projecting power around the world.
> 
> China is an economic threat and a technological threat but I don't think they have the same cold war aspiration that the Russian's had with projecting power. They have to much going on just trying to protect the home front. Even as they grow economically they will also have huge social problems and needs to support at home and with the size of there population those cost will be huge.



That's an excellent post. China is an economic and an intelligence threat but I doubt they would be a major military threat to the US.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

Servimus said:


> I'm with you on India and Pakistan. That is India deserves our support to offset the Chinese...



Why do they?


----------



## Servimus (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> Why do they?


India is a natural ally in the GWOT, IMO. When we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Bush secured the help of Musharraf, India was telling us that Pakistan was a hotbed of insurgent/terrorist activity and, moreover, their relationship with certain Pakistani government officials. They've been fighting these guys in Kashmir for decades. They know Pakistan better than we do. For economic reasons, India is also a valuable friend.

China, in the name of energy security, has made friends with some shady nations. Sudan, Iran, Venezuela. They've sold arms to Iran and effectively block any UN security council action on Iran. Iran's relationship with terrorist organizations and Shia insurgents in Iraq is well established. Sudan's is as well. Venezuela likely has links to FARC.

I think India is a more valuable ally than China and more in-line with our interests in the GWOT.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

Ha! _You_  fellows have made friends with some shady nations in the name of oil ;) Everybody is friends with somebody shady on some level.

But you haven't addressed why India _deserves_ US support against China. The question wasn't one about the GWOT (I despise that term by the way and I use it under duress).


----------



## Marauder06 (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> ... the GWOT (I despise that term by the way and I use it under duress).



What should it be called then?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> What should it be called then?



We've had the discussion before but the thread has probably been deleted...

I don't know what else to call it. But GWOT is a soundbite and it implies that it's not an ongoing issue. It's a political soundbite, nothing more. I despise soundbites, especially those from politicians.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> We've had the discussion before but the thread has probably been deleted...
> 
> I don't know what else to call it. But GWOT is a soundbite and it implies that it's not an ongoing issue. It's a political soundbite, nothing more. I despise soundbites, especially those from politicians.



Fair enough.  I thought you were going to trot out the trite argument, "terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy to fight a war against."  That drives me crazy.


----------



## alibi (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> We've had the discussion before but the thread has probably been deleted...
> 
> I don't know what else to call it. But GWOT is a soundbite and it implies that it's not an ongoing issue. It's a political soundbite, nothing more. I despise soundbites, especially those from politicians.



Sadly, we live in a soundbite culture.


----------



## Servimus (May 24, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> Ha! _You_ fellows have made friends with some shady nations in the name of oil ;) Everybody is friends with somebody shady on some level.
> 
> But you haven't addressed why India _deserves_ US support against China. The question wasn't one about the GWOT (I despise that term by the way and I use it under duress).


Well, I don't think any nation _deserves_ the support of another nation. India and the United States share common goals and those goals are best accomplished through cooperation.

Do any of our allies sponsor terrorism from the state level? Some of our allies might not be shining examples of Western values, and no that's not ideal, but there's a difference between them and those who directly sponsor terrorism and, at the same time, pursue a nuclear weapons program. Tough questions that I don't claim to have the answers to.

Why would you say that India is not worthy of continued support from the US?


----------



## mike_cos (May 24, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Venezuela likely has links to FARC.



Likely?... Sure my friend... sure...  And Ugo has strong relationships with Hezbollah, Pasdaran and Ahmadinejad.... new terrorists camps are there.. (In venezuela borders I mean..)


----------



## Manolito (May 25, 2011)

With 1.3 Billion mouths to feed and school their plate is full for now. As we watched the Asian rim prosper and the production of goods move from one under developed country to another. It is clear that as their standard of living increases they become burdened with Education, roads and infrastructure. If you look at China at night huge areas are still dark with little energy grid infrastructure.
If China spends their entire fortune they would have  a third world country with bad roads and under educated population. I have studied the Chinese ghost cities they have built with the average cost of the homes in the 100K but no population earning that kind of money to buy the homes. As a result they sit vacant hoping their economy will come up to the cities they built.
We listened to the same thing about Japan and how they were going to take over the world and the US went through a time when they thought Japan was the only people that could design a production facility and production program. We found out after some very tough times that the Japanese have the same problems as everybody else in the world.
It is only my opinion but we are the only ones that can remove the US from the position it holds today and we appear hell bent on doing just that.
Bill


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 25, 2011)

Interesting thoughts in this thread, a lot of valid points being made.

My personal thoughts, is that we could offer more economical growth to China by shipping our supplies to china and allowing them to transport them to the Afghan border. Hell we could pay to have their military bring it to our FOB’s, and no it would not have to be flown in. It would easier and faster to ship straight across the Pacific into China, and have China move west to Afghanistan by rail.

Two things I would like to see us do is, 1) get China behind us on the GWOT and fighting terrorism with us, and 2) see what their true military capabilities are. They have us by the balls when it comes to the economic stuff; however the more money we put into their economy the more they will be required to rely on us in the future. That would give us more leverage with China in the future IMHO.

China has already started to spread their “global power” military presence, mostly in Africa but as posted before not largley, but they are. I think it would be smart of us to find out what their capabilities and national support for war is, especially with the amount of US vs China crap out there. I would like to know what they are capable of, prior to ever having to meet them on the battle field. Just my personal opinion.

As for Pakistan, we need to cut them off and alginate them as best as we can. If we could open up economic growth through China and remove the importance of the Paki’s to Afghanistan, we might be able to get the Paki/Afghan border to shut itself down. Let it be what it is, a terrorist/insurgent haven and keep our military focus at killing the likes when they move into Afghanistan. I think the real key here is removing Pakistanis positions of importance, and moving forward with building better allies with China and long term friendship with Afghanistan (leaving the door open for Iran in the future).

Again I know it sounds crazy, but just trying to look at this in a different light.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 25, 2011)

Thinking outside the box is always a good thing mate :)



JAB said:


> Interesting thoughts in this thread, a lot of valid points being made.
> 
> My personal thoughts, is that we could offer more economical growth to China by shipping our supplies to china and allowing them to transport them to the Afghan border. Hell we could pay to have their military bring it to our FOB’s, and no it would not have to be flown in. It would easier and faster to ship straight across the Pacific into China, and have China move west to Afghanistan by rail.



Now I'm not 100% on this but I'm reasonably certain there aren't many, if any, railway lines up that way. The other, and more important, consideration is: Do you really want US equipment passing through Chinese hands? They've probably got the plans/samples of most of your equipment but there's not point just handing it to them.



> Two things I would like to see us do is, 1) get China behind us on the GWOT and fighting terrorism with us, and 2) see what their true military capabilities are. They have us by the balls when it comes to the economic stuff; however the more money we put into their economy the more they will be required to rely on us in the future. That would give us more leverage with China in the future IMHO.



With regard to terrorism. China doesn't have the same problem with terrorism that the West does. Much of the grievance that the terrorists have is related to Israel and US support of what they perceive to be illegitimate regimes in the Mid East right? China has no interest in Israel and the only solid partner they have in the Mid East is Iran, which is a very pragmatic relationship.
In fact, China once put forward a list of so-called terrorists (to the UN IIRC, for funding freezing and whatnot) that turned out to be legitimate protesters (democracy, Falun Dafa etc). The biggest problem they have is from Xinjiang but that's relatively minor in terms of terrorism.

With regard to the economic comments. China and the US are tied together at this particular moment. The US relies on cheap production and China relies on the US dollar. However, while China might own those bonds the balance is pretty much towards the US at the moment. There's actually an interesting theory that countries with heavy trade to each other will not go to war but it's not bulletproof and I don't put a huge amount of stock in it. There is a little to it, though.

Their military capabilities are interesting but I can't say too much about land or sea forces because that's not my area of interest but they're getting a lot of decent airpower these days. Not enough to fight anyone significant but it's good technology in good airframes. I haven't done enough research on their training to comment on that yet.



> China has already started to spread their “global power” military presence, mostly in Africa but as posted before not largley, but they are. I think it would be smart of us to find out what their capabilities and national support for war is, especially with the amount of US vs China crap out there. I would like to know what they are capable of, prior to ever having to meet them on the battle field. Just my personal opinion.



Ah but NZ and Australia are also involved in that operation, to about the same extent as the PLAN. Does that mean we're spreading our global power? Not in my opinion. China can power project to about 500miles (from the last thing I saw about it) but not much further than that. Enough to throw their weight around over the Spratleys or Taiwan.



> As for Pakistan, we need to cut them off and alginate them as best as we can. If we could open up economic growth through China and remove the importance of the Paki’s to Afghanistan, we might be able to get the Paki/Afghan border to shut itself down. Let it be what it is, a terrorist/insurgent haven and keep our military focus at killing the likes when they move into Afghanistan. I think the real key here is removing Pakistanis positions of importance, and moving forward with building better allies with China and long term friendship with Afghanistan (leaving the door open for Iran in the future).



I like what you're saying but Afghanistan will always be important to Pakistan as long as they are using the jihadis against India. I say fuck Afghanistan. The Taliban know not to harbour AQ now, let them do what they want. They'll probably have another civil war one the ISAF leaves anyway. Who knows, the Taliban might not win.



> Again I know it sounds crazy, but just trying to look at this in a different light.



I enjoy reading your posts mate, thinking outside of the box is better than thinking in a conformal way.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 25, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Well, I don't think any nation _deserves_ the support of another nation. India and the United States share common goals and those goals are best accomplished through cooperation.
> 
> Do any of our allies sponsor terrorism from the state level? Some of our allies might not be shining examples of Western values, and no that's not ideal, but there's a difference between them and those who directly sponsor terrorism and, at the same time, pursue a nuclear weapons program. Tough questions that I don't claim to have the answers to.
> 
> Why would you say that India is not worthy of continued support from the US?



You mean like Saudi, who might not directly sponsor terrorism, per say, but they allow funding of it and the spread of their evil strain of Islam that gives rise to these groups?

I don't see the point in supporting India for the sake of supporting India. They're pretty finnicky with who they let in as mates themselves. US, Soviet Union, Britain, Russia have all been close allies at one point or another in the last 60 years.


----------



## Servimus (May 25, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> You mean like Saudi, who might not directly sponsor terrorism, per say, but they allow funding of it and the spread of their evil strain of Islam that gives rise to these groups?
> 
> I don't see the point in supporting India for the sake of supporting India. They're pretty finnicky with who they let in as mates themselves. US, Soviet Union, Britain, Russia have all been close allies at one point or another in the last 60 years.


As much as I'd like to have a good comeback here- I don't. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has made me a fan of domestic drilling. They don't sponsor terrorism as far as we know from the state level, but they're ass backwards and have created an intellectual vacuum where this Islamist garbage has cultivated and thrived. I can't disagree with you there.


----------

