Pak army has liberty to hit back at Nato attacks: Kayani (LBN xpost)

[bananas]

From LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5077471

Pak army has liberty to hit back at Nato attacks: Kayani
Source: Hindustan Times

Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Friday gave his troops "full liberty" to respond to any further cross-border attacks by Nato forces in Afghanistan in the wake of an air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, official sources said.

The powerful army chief told commanders of units deployed along the western border with Afghanistan that they had "full liberty of action to respond (by) employing all capabilities" available at their disposal, the sources said.

Kayani was quoted by the sources as saying that there should be "no ambiguity in the rules of engagement for everyone down the chain of command" if they faced an attack by Nato forces.

Such an action would "require no clearance at any level" and the army would "provide resources as required on ground", he was quoted as saying.

Read more: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Pak-army-has-liberty-to-hit-back-at-Nato-attacks-Kayani/Article1-776847.aspx

Anti-science pro-nukes have claimed that nuclear proliferation is good because no country would never attack another country which has nuclear weapons. This has already been proven wrong a number of times, but anti-science pro-nukes don't learn from history.

Recently we've seen NATO attack Pakistan, a country which has nuclear weapons.
So Pakistans nuclear weapons have not prevented them from being attacked.
Anti-science pro-nukes are proven wrong again.

Now Pakistan has authorized "full liberty of action to respond (by) employing all capabilities" and "require no clearance at any level".
Does that include nuclear weapons? Is there some ambiguity about this?
Kayani was quoted by the sources as saying that there should be "no ambiguity in the rules of engagement for everyone down the chain of command" if they faced an attack by Nato forces.

[MADem]

1. Well, some would say we've seen Pakistan attack NATO, too.

There is some discussion over what really happened in that "NATO" attack, which is why the usual "friendly fire" apologies are not forthcoming.

[atreides1]

2. Maybe

And some are saying that NATO got played by the Taliban...which doesn't exactly speak well of HUMINT gathering.

Regardless, this doesn't bode well for either side...because in the long term, it'll be the Taliban and its supporters who win.

[MADem]

3. Time will tell. I will wager there is much we do not know. nt