Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 12/29/2008 View Sun 12/28/2008 View Sat 12/27/2008 View Fri 12/26/2008 View Thu 12/25/2008 View Wed 12/24/2008 View Tue 12/23/2008
1
2008-12-29 Afghanistan
India offers US 120,000 troops for Afghanistan
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by john frum 2008-12-29 12:42|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ]  Top

#1 Deeeeelicious!
Posted by tu3031 2008-12-29 12:58||   2008-12-29 12:58|| Front Page Top

#2 It's not up to me, but if it were, I'd say: Yes, we glady accept.

(send the bulk of NATO troops home. you know who I mean)
Posted by MarkZ 2008-12-29 13:00||   2008-12-29 13:00|| Front Page Top

#3 WOW....if this turns out to be true?

Posted by C-Low 2008-12-29 13:04||   2008-12-29 13:04|| Front Page Top

#4 
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-29 13:05||   2008-12-29 13:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Geez, Gomez. Where ya gonna move your guys now?
Posted by tu3031 2008-12-29 13:06||   2008-12-29 13:06|| Front Page Top

#6 I love this idea. If the Indians decide to do it, best way to get 120,000 troopers from India to Pakistan is route 60 to Lahore, then follow route 5 all the way to the Khyber Pass. Indian commanders using maps would note that they pass through Gujranwala, Rawalpindi and Peshawar.
Posted by Steve White 2008-12-29 13:09||   2008-12-29 13:09|| Front Page Top

#7 Its about time the West and India teamed up against our common enemy Saudi funded Pakistan!!!
Posted by Thomock White3201 2008-12-29 14:08||   2008-12-29 14:08|| Front Page Top

#8 Once alternate supply routes are available

And therein lies the problem.
Posted by phil_b 2008-12-29 14:30||   2008-12-29 14:30|| Front Page Top

#9 I call BS. Not that I want to- but this doesn't pass the smell test:

-No way India would denude their strike forces, especially during heightened tension w/ Pak
-Logistics
-No training w/ NATO, especially as expeditionary forces.

If India wants to develop this capability, we should SHOWER them with training and supplies. But until then...
Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical  2008-12-29 14:45||   2008-12-29 14:45|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks for the cold water, FR :-)

A fella can hope, can't he?
Posted by Steve White 2008-12-29 14:48||   2008-12-29 14:48|| Front Page Top

#11 Sorry SW!

Also remember that India has to keep an unusually large # of troops at home due to the presence of, say, 130 MILLION muslim citizens.

Hell, India is so damn big that ALL their armed forces should be trained as expeditionary forces just to be able to operate at home!
Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical  2008-12-29 15:02||   2008-12-29 15:02|| Front Page Top

#12 phil_b: And therein lies the problem.

That's right. This deployment will be practical once India creates a route (via invasion) from India to the Afghan border. I really don't see it happening, especially given current budget realities.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 16:07|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 16:07|| Front Page Top

#13 In fact, given the current uproar over Gaza, now would be the time for India to bomb Pakistani targets.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 16:08|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 16:08|| Front Page Top

#14 Hell, anytime would be the time for India to bomb Pakistani targets, ZF.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2008-12-29 16:13|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]  2008-12-29 16:13|| Front Page Top

#15 It'd sure screw with Pakistan though, wouldn't it. It makes sense in a sort of reverse-psychology way. In fact, I would bet that Pakistan would have to pay way more than India would in the long run, and Indian troops would get some training out of the deal.
Posted by gorb 2008-12-29 16:15||   2008-12-29 16:15|| Front Page Top

#16 Free Radical brings out a main point. India has 130 mega muzzies at home on a potential war path if things go south with Pakistan, which can keep India pretty occupied. Pak knows this and wants to tweak the stick on India to keep her off balance. India would have to neutralize the Pak nukes to do a conventional attack on Pak assets. That is a tall order.

A conventional war could and would probably escalate to a nuclear war, and if that happens all bets are off.

My best long distance ignorant estimate of what would happen in that case is that Pakistan would cease to exist and India could lose 1/4 to 1/2 the country.

My ignorant assessment is that India is not in a real good position to do anything decisive. What the world needs is to take away or destroy Pak nukes and all the nuclear infrastructure it has. Just who will do that is not yet clear, but that is what needs to be done. A nuke armed Pak and Iran would be a veddy veddy bad thing.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-12-29 16:44||   2008-12-29 16:44|| Front Page Top

#17 Could they double-down and occupy Gaza?
Posted by Super Hose 2008-12-29 16:46||   2008-12-29 16:46|| Front Page Top

#18 I suspect the training/interoperability issues are paramount. It is no longer safe for even British troops to fight on the same battle field with us. If India really wanted to make the commitment, they could develop a truly world class military. The boys in Peking would sit up and notice that.

As far as logistics go, a twenty foot container is a twenty foot container. If the Paks don't want to let them through, perhaps the Indians will have to open the route from Lahore to Peshawar to Kabul. That would tighten some turbans.

I'm not so quick to call BS on this. It's a win-win offer for India. If we accept, they move up to the Oz class of ally, and Pakistan takes a big hit. But even if it is declined, which I think much more likely, it still pushes the relationship forward. With Bush, there was little doubt about direction. With The One's coming it is less clear. It would be a good start to keeping things moving and getting his temperature. And just this article has to have heads spinning in Islamabad and Beijing.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-12-29 17:02||   2008-12-29 17:02|| Front Page Top

#19 @FR: Out of the 130M Muslims in India, maybe only 1 - 2 Million would be soft towards the Pakis, the remainder are more or less on the right side.
Posted by Insider 2008-12-29 17:03||   2008-12-29 17:03|| Front Page Top

#20 Our trusty correspondent, Mandeep Singh Bajwa

LOL. Bad Fred is Bad.
Posted by .5MT 2008-12-29 17:14||   2008-12-29 17:14|| Front Page Top

#21 Let's not get too carried away about a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Let's be clear, it would be bad and a lot of innocents would suffer and die horribly.

However, neither side has the ability to wipe out the other. Most of the nuclear weapons they have are relatively low yield fission bombs (uranium or plutonium), and they don't have that many. The good ole' ISIS has looked at this and estimates a few dozen for each. That's theoretical and doesn't account for recent manufacturing.

At the same time, it also doesn't account for delivery. A first strike India might deliver most of its bombs, and in that case Pakistan would take a devastating blow. Pakistan's first-strike capability is some less, particularly if the Indians are alert, and their second-strike capability is, I'm guessing (WAG, really) far less.

So I don't see Pakistan being obliterated, and I don't see India losing 1/4 of her people, even if the worst occurs. All that said, I don't want to see it happen at all.
Posted by Steve White 2008-12-29 18:08||   2008-12-29 18:08|| Front Page Top

#22 If you all might remember, I proposed just this idea a while back. It is full of WIN for any number of reasons.

First of all, it would unnerve the heck out of the Pak army, and everybody else, that may have fooled itself, yet again, into thinking it could take on the Indian army.

Second, the Pak army would have to split their forces, facing a "second front".

Third, the Indians could choose to position themselves just opposite the most troublesome parts of Pakistan, FATA and NWFP. This would force the Pak army to "invade" and hold those places, right in the bad guys laps.

Fourth, the Indians can just sit there and let the local nutcases charge their lines.

Fifth, it is doing NATO and the US all kinds of favors, for which some kind of remuneration could be expected, and would be in order. Heck, even Israel would be all grins to India for a while over this.

Sixth, it would be serious Vi*gra for their military to force project, and it goes a long way to getting India a UNSC seat, which they are already due.

Seventh, the logistics involved will even give a workout to their navy, cooperating with their army and air forces. That is very valuable experience.
Posted by Anonymoose 2008-12-29 18:22||   2008-12-29 18:22|| Front Page Top

#23 Wel-l-l, does explain some of the rants by Chin Netters this AM. Its not clear at this time iff CHINA + PAKISTAN will accept such a move, espec China which is already concerned about Islamist -led destabilization efforts in its WESTERN-SW CHINA + MONGOLIA + POST-MUMBAI POTENTIAL MIL CONFRONTATION/CONLICT AGZ INDIA AS A CONSEQ OF ANY INDO-PAKI WAR???

E.g. WORLD MIL FORUM [Chinese] + INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM [Indian-S.Asian] > Netters already believe the MUMBAI incident lays the whole of SOUTH/WEST ASIA wide open to US = PRO-US [includ NATO-EU] INFLUENCE + DOMINAT/IMPERIALISM, WHICH THEY DISLIKE ANDOR PROCLAIM TO RESIST BY ANY MEANS.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-12-29 18:34||   2008-12-29 18:34|| Front Page Top

#24 vii. It'll give the kooks something to wack off about without messing up the front page
Posted by .5MT 2008-12-29 19:12||   2008-12-29 19:12|| Front Page Top

#25 Pls, forward i to deh above... thanks... yes.. use deh thousands of tiny delivery things and expedite, quickly.

Also mark it for Jilly

Posted by .5MT 2008-12-29 19:14||   2008-12-29 19:14|| Front Page Top

#26 Like the article says, just making the offer serves 50% of the purpose....
Posted by Scooter McGruder 2008-12-29 19:39||   2008-12-29 19:39|| Front Page Top

#27 My best long distance ignorant estimate of what would happen in that case is that Pakistan would cease to exist and India could lose 1/4 to 1/2 the country.

I suspect the numbers would be far smaller than that. Each country might lose in the tens of millions max. But that's it. Both Pakistan and India are pretty big. To completely cover Pakistan with nukes, you'd need 25,000 40 kT nukes. India has a few dozen, at best. Those few dozen nukes would cover slightly more than 0.1% of Pakistan's land mass. Put it this way - to completely destroy Karachi would require 130 40 kT nukes. That's more than double the estimated inventory of Indian nukes. If the Indians managed to muster up the ordnance, the total casualty count from flattening Karachi would only be 16m people.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 19:53|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 19:53|| Front Page Top

#28 to completely destroy Karachi would require 130 40 kT nukes.

You are out of your league on this subject.

Posted by Shipman 2008-12-29 20:04||   2008-12-29 20:04|| Front Page Top

#29 You are out of your league on this subject.

You're out of your league generally.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 20:08|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 20:08|| Front Page Top

#30 Most maps I see show Karachi being roughly 14x14 km.

The worst case with all possible suburbs would be 40miles by 15 miles. (doubtful)

so using this calculator and assuming Houston is similar in blast characteristics you see a pretty nasty mess with just one 40kt bomb
calc
7 40KT warheads (according to the calculator) would pretty much erase Houston.
Karachi has to be a softer target than Houston excepting its building tend more toward stone and cement than Houston's .... The radioactivity from the bombs would be a huge factor too...

If it is like LA a few more ... but...
you only need to take out a few critical spots and the city falls apart.

Posted by 3dc 2008-12-29 20:55||   2008-12-29 20:55|| Front Page Top

#31 Karachi's land area is about 3500 sq km. A 40 kT bomb generates 3rd degree burns at best (for the victims) within a 3 km radius - what you might call the fatality radius. (These burns are likely to be fatal, given that they require immediate hospitalization that is unlikely to be available for tens of thousands at a time). That's roughly 27 sq km of coverage. Divide 3500 by 27 and you get about 130 bombs.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 21:03|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 21:03|| Front Page Top

#32 I don't mean to get into the macabre of this discussion, nor am I promoting the use of nukes. I used to work at the Nevada Test Site and I have the utmost awe and respect for these little monsters.

What I meant for Pakistan to cease to exist was to cease to exist as a nation. Targeting key infrastructure, like port facilities, centers of govt, power plants, water and sewerage infrastructure can bring an industrial state to a halt in a very short time. No energy, no transport, no sanitation, no food. 4 Horseman stuff after that.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-12-29 21:40||   2008-12-29 21:40|| Front Page Top

#33 I suppose if we take radiation out of the calculation and make it some kind of acedemic exercise that only takes into account theoretical blast radius and define the objective as every inch of Karachi being in one of said blast radii...
Posted by Mike N. 2008-12-29 21:56||   2008-12-29 21:56|| Front Page Top

#34 Targeting key infrastructure...can bring an industrial state to a halt in a very short time.

How much of the Land Of The Pure can be counted as an industrial state? Still, wiping out ports, the center of Islamabad, and the senior officers' cantonments will go a long way to cutting the head of the Pakistani snake. I've no idea whether nuclear bombs would be needed to accomplish that.
Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife  2008-12-29 22:55||   2008-12-29 22:55|| Front Page Top

#35 I suppose if we take radiation out of the calculation and make it some kind of acedemic exercise that only takes into account theoretical blast radius and define the objective as every inch of Karachi being in one of said blast radii...

I wouldn't call it entirely theoretical given that we have two demonstration projects - from 1945 - of the effects of nukes on a city. The difference is that in Pakistan, most of the structures are, if my recollection from the Marianne Pearl movie is accurate, made of brick rather than the wood used in earthquake-prone Japan. One nuke isn't going to burn down the entire city. And the reality is that the city doesn't actually feed the countryside - it's the countryside that feeds the city. Killing people in the city couldn't possibly cause starvation. If you want to talk about the Four Horsemen, one of them is knocked off, right off the bat.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-29 23:33|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2008-12-29 23:33|| Front Page Top

#36 Remember Bill Cosby's Story of Noah?

"I WILL LET IT RAIN FOR FOUR THOUSAND DAYS AND FOUR THOUSAND NIGHTS!"

"Why not just let it rain for forty days and forty nights and wait for the sewers to back up?"

"RIGHT"
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-12-29 23:52||   2008-12-29 23:52|| Front Page Top

23:57 JosephMendiola
23:55 trailing wife
23:52 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:43 Cheash Bluetooth aka Broadhead6
23:33 Zhang Fei
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
22:56 hammerhead
22:55 trailing wife
22:50 gromky
22:49 Jaique Johnson2117
22:43 mojo
22:41 hordUpserfepe
22:33 DarthVader
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:03 Frank G
22:00 Mike N.
21:56 Mike N.
21:53 Alaska Paul
21:40 Alaska Paul
21:40 Frank G
21:40 CrazyFool
21:29 CrazyFool
21:26 Pappy
21:14 P2k on holiday









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com