Pakistan Navy Jihadists

[ORAC]

5 Navy Officers Sentenced to Death in Pakistan for Trying to Attack US Warship

The five officers allegedly tried to steal a Pakistani warship to attack a U.S. naval vessel.

At least five officers of the Pakistan Navy received death sentences in a secret military trial for allegedly trying to hijack a Pakistan Navy vessel to attack a U.S. Navy refueling ship, Daily Pakistan reports.

The officers were convicted of planning and orchestrating the September 6, 2014, attack on the Karachi Naval Dockyard located at Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast. The attack was thwarted by Pakistani military personnel with purportedly two attackers killed and four arrested alive (some sources cite 10 killed, including four rogue naval officers).

The attackers allegedly attempted to hijack the F-22P Zulfiquar-class frigate Zulfiqar, the lead ship of its class, with the intention of using the ship’s missiles to attack a U.S. Navy refuel vessel in the Arabian Sea (other sources claim that the target was a U.S. aircraft carrier).......

[Tourist]

Holy cr@p!

I have no idea how competent these guys were, whether they were unlucky to be caught or total idiots, but the potential consequences if they had succeeded are spectacular.

Can you imagine the US reaction to "rebel" Pakistani warship attacking a Carrier?

Both sides nuclear........

[ORAC]

Might not have come to that, if they followed the Russian precedent....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovi...te_Storozhevoy

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Tourist

Can you imagine the US reaction to "rebel" Pakistani warship attacking a Carrier?

Both sides nuclear........

Your last sentence is irrelevant. I can imagine a variety of reactions, both political and perhaps with hardware, but nothing nuclear.
The US didn't nuke Saddam when the Stark got hit, did they? And that was with Reagan at the helm.


Nice to see someone in Pakistan has their ducks in a row. Would have been a strange incident, to be sure, had they managed to pull it off.

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Your last sentence is irrelevant. I can imagine a variety of reactions, both political and perhaps with hardware, but nothing nuclear.
The US didn't nuke Saddam when the Stark got hit, did they? And that was with Reagan at the helm.


Nice to see someone in Pakistan has their ducks in a row. Would have been a strange incident, to be sure, had they managed to pull it off.

Nothing is ever irrelevant, least of all nuclear weapons.

That is, in fact, the entire point of having them.

It is one thing to disown the actions of an aircraft. That is easy to sell. A warship is another thing altogether.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Tourist, the simple possession of nuclear weapons does not by itself render those in possession insane. Your assumption that a conventional incident triggers a nuclear outcome is, to be frank, risible. I'll leave it at that.

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

@Tourist, the simple possession of nuclear weapons does not by itself render those in possession insane. Your assumption that a conventional incident triggers a nuclear outcome is, to be frank, risible. I'll leave it at that.

Your misquoting is the only risible thing here.

There was absolutely no assumption of the sort on my part. Read what I wrote, not what you think I mean.

[Lonewolf_50]

Here is what you said.

Both sides nuclear

(it was your last sentence)
here is what I said

Your last sentence is irrelevant

that both the US and Pakistan have nuclear weapons is irrelevant to the case being discussed, which is the potential incident on the high seas of a hijacked surface combatant.

[Tourist]

You misunderstand.

It is the Pakistani possession of Nucs that ensures that whilst the US would be desperate to do something if they got a warship damaged/destroyed, despite the loss of face would do nothing. This would be a salutary lesson to all small nations of the advantages of getting some big bang capability.

The US (and others, to be fair) is very willing to throw it's weight around when the balance of power is extremely one-sided.

I notice, however that the US loses it's balls once the other side has some buckets of sunshine. For example see North Korea vs Iraq or Afghanistan or etc etc.

[Tourist]

Incidentally, the fact of whether or not it was the state acting to attack or merely some hijackers would be very difficult to establish.

We all know how happy politicians are to doctor evidence in order to invade....

[West Coast]

I notice, however that the US loses it's balls once the other side has some buckets of sunshine.

And in the many decades post armistice and before NK achieved nuclear status? By your belief, the US would have sent the fat wun and his family packing long ago.

Yah, your hypothesis doesn't carry water.

[MPN11]

OMG - "Tourist Warning RED"

Unsubscribing from this thread

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Yah, your hypothesis doesn't carry water.

Since my hypothesis can be paraphrased as "nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent against attacks from other countries", you might want to tell your government and my government how much money they have wasted maintaining a force that they believe does just that......

[Tourist]

North Korea always had China looking out for them. They could not be sure that that would continue for ever.

[West Coast]

you might want to tell your government and my government how much money they have wasted maintaining a force that they believe does just that......

Tangent. You've moved away from your point. Your right to do so, but noted.

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Tangent. You've moved away from your point. Your right to do so, but noted.

No tangent.

You say my hypothesis holds no water.
I point out that I'm not alone in my belief that Nuclear weapons are a good deterrent against attacks.

[West Coast]

You noted differing levels of willingness for US military operations. Before NK achieved nuke status, the US had a number of decades during which if a President had truly felt a need to eliminate it's form of government, it could have done so with no military repercussions to the US homeland. Your casual remark made it sound like the US no longer had the option due to nukes, likely true. It doesn't properly represent that the US had plenty of time, opportunity and at times motive yet didn't do so, showing that not possessing a nuke, yet despite provocative actions, all it received were sanctions

[Tourist]

Not really true.
For a long time, and possibly even now, China has been there giving top cover.

I don't know about you, but I reckon that the US might have made a move in the years leading up to North Korea getting their own deterrent if they were sure that China would stand back.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Tourist

Not really true.
For a long time, and possibly even now, China has been there giving top cover.

I don't know about you, but I reckon that the US might have made a move in the years leading up to North Korea getting their own deterrent if they were sure that China would stand back.

Tourist: NK is an anomaly, and is a "nothing to lose" player at a game table. Comparing NK to pretty much anyone else is a loser's gambit.

Pakistan is in a different situation. Your scare mongering is badly attempted, and utterly misses the actual geopolitics in that region by a mile.

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Your scare mongering is badly attempted, and utterly misses the actual geopolitics in that region by a mile.

You are still managing to utterly miss my point.