We will win nuclear war, says India

tools

Times story here.
What's the hold-up? Do we have to wait until CNN reporters are in place before the kick off? And which side is "Good" and which is "Evil"? And why is Dubya being allowed to "urge restraint"? Why isn't he locked in the basement or something? Is there any possibility that the "war on terrorism" gives India a handy excuse for attacking Pakistan? Who's going to make some serious moolah from arms sales over this?

Let's Roll!

SantaHoe

There are no winners in a nuclear war etc...
Don't hate... love.
/me huggles India, "there there".

Hobbes

I doubt the US will let it come to that. Otherwise a lot of their large businesses will be royally fuked if India becomes a nuclear wasteland.

Then Pakistan are also under the mistaken belief that the US will save them after their help with Afganistan.

Although the US businesses could then default on any payments to Indian businesses under force majure.

GoneShootin

hmm.

i seem to recall a quote from a certain Simpsons episode

marge to bart

"or as your uncle used to say, shoot em all and let gd sort em out"

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Does no one know the definition of "Nuclear war"? If it happens we're all f ucked, not just India/Pakistan.

DeVore

Einstein said: I do not know how they will fight the third world war, but the fourth will fought with sticks and stones. (paraphrased).

nuff said.

DeV.

Morrison

Gah...The Nuclear fallout will destroy my hair =-/

I remeber my father saying it best, when he said that if the US went to Afghanistan it would make the whole region unstable.

GoneShootin

better get my iodine tablets then

Sand

I knew somebody would find a way to blame the US for it, disregarding the fact it was a terrorist attack on the Indian parliment that sparked of this latest incident in the short but notable history of Pakistani-Indian mutually hostile relations.

And I wouldnt get as upset as some of you- Because theyve both got nukes neither side wants to use them , given they be hit back just as hard. At most it will be a few skirmishes with conventional troops along the borders and a deal that restores things to the status quo. Last I heard pakistan was taking action against the terrorists thought to be responsible for the Indian attack.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/30/200529.shtml

and

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/31/170307.shtml

Seems the hostile rhetoric has a bit to do with upcoming elections- the old nationalist card.

Typedef

Well it is a fact that the US is supporting the Military Dictatorship that is running Pakistan, and a Dictatorship is not a democracy, a Military Dictatorship that has prorouged the democratically elected Pakistani parliment and a Military Dictatorship that is involved in war posturing by two nuclear capable combatants, so the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

I mean I know the US has double standards (don't we all), but at exactly which point in time did the support of the military abrogation of the mechisma of democracy, less than equal condemnation and persecution of "state sponsored terrorism" (contrast Afghanistan and Pakistan regiemes and said "terrorism") and the support of dictatorial nuclear powers become compatible with "freedom, justice and the global war on terrorism"?

Oh wait I get it, so long as you are not opposed to the United States you aren't a terrorist, uh, better take all those Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups off of your "terrorist" lists there eh?

Sand

the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

Yes- Much like US support of the USSR in WW2- The end justifies the means.

I mean I know the US has double standards (don't we all), but at exactly which point in time did the support of the military abrogation of the mechisma of democracy, less than equal condemnation and persecution of "state sponsored terrorism" (contrast Afghanistan and Pakistan regiemes and said "terrorism") and the support of dictatorial nuclear powers become compatible with "freedom, justice and the global war on terrorism"?

Since it became practical.

EDIT
BTW Type you should start a "USA is Evil" thread. Itll probably be hilarious but not as funny as "Bert is Evil":)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand


Yes- Much like US support of the USSR in WW2- The end justifies the means.

EDIT
BTW Type you should start a "USA is Evil" thread. Itll probably be hilarious but not as funny as "Bert is Evil":)

Hey Sand you are now contridicting yourself, if the end justifies the means then by your logic "terrorism" is ok as the end that the "terrorist" is striving for justifies said "terrorists" methods ie "terrorism" of bringing that about, pretty glaring double standard wouldn't you think?

Sand

It might be if terrorism was actually effective. It isnt. Hence it does not achieve an end, hence no means can be justified. Surely a child prodigy can understand that? 30 years of violence in the north and no British pullout, decades of violence in Corsica and the Basque regisons and no French or Spanish pullouts, the WTC attacks and no US pullout . Because terrorism has no milatary value. However using Pakistan as a base has milatary value. Hence the complete rout inside about 2-3 months of the Taliban and their terrorist buddies. Milatary action *is* effective. That end justifies the means of using a dictatorship as a base.

If you want to continue your "USA is Evil" views then open a thread like I advised. It would save you having to post them in every other post regardless of its topic.

Well it is a fact that the US is supporting the Military Dictatorship that is running Pakistan, and a Dictatorship is not a democracy, a Military Dictatorship that has prorouged the democratically elected Pakistani parliment and a Military Dictatorship that is involved in war posturing by two nuclear capable combatants, so the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

Oh yeah I should probably have asked this the first time but Ill ask it now...
What the hell does all that have to do with Pakistan and India potentially going to war over a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliment? Anything at all? Especially given its the LAST thing the US needs. Or do you have a mental compulsion to blame the US for EVERYTHING?

Typedef

Ah I understand, "The end justifies the means" (so long as you aren't a "terrorist").
Em can I just say that you are being pedantic about the definition of an end. One might easily say that and end is a goal and not as you espouse "an end to conflict", ergo you are contradicting yourself.

anyway

Sand
I knew somebody would find a way to blame the US

The US is as I was attempting to point out painting itself as the defender of democracy whilst supporting a Military Dictatorship in Pakistan, a dictatorship that has sponsored "terrorists" and was/is in the process of posturing for war that could degenerate into nuclear conflict, I'm not blaming the US for the situation vis-a-vis Pakistan-India, I'm saying support of such a Military Dictatorship is contrary to many of the stated "principals" of the USA and is contrary to the most recent aims of the "global war on terrorism".

Sand

An End- Well my Oxford dictionary defines that as a "conclusion, finish, result, outcome, and ultimate state or outcome" among other things but i believe my point is made - If terrorism is a means to an end, then how can it be an end in itself? A child prodigy should be able to solve that paradox. Nothing else has been achieved by terrorism in the conflicts i mentioned- except misery, but at least its over there and not here so we dont have to confront that.

BTW me pedantic?:) Coming from the person who opened up the whole debate on how far the phrase "Ends justifies the means " can be stretched- well its a little rich.

The US is as I was attempting to point out painting itself as the defender of democracy whilst supporting a Military Dictatorship in Pakistan, a dictatorship that has sponsored "terrorists" and was/is in the process of posturing for war that could degenerate into nuclear conflict, I'm not blaming the US for the situation vis-a-vis Pakistan-India, I'm saying support of such a Military Dictatorship is contrary to many of the stated "principals" of the USA and is contrary to the most recent aims of the "global war on terrorism".

Which has nothing to do with the Indian/Pakistani incident- unless of course your saying the US had something to do with the attack on the Indian parlimentary building? - but it is a good case for opening your "USA is Evil" thread and putting it there.

BTW

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/30/200529.shtml

Hmm looks like this milatary dictatorship can at least take certain meaningful action to curb terrorism from within its borders when required to do so. I pity them however, given the decades old Kashmir dispute which is only heightened by religious animosities from the 40s, along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan- well its been a holiday destination spot for many heavily armed prayer groups. The Pakistani regime may have thought it could simply support the US and let sleeping dogs lie, but the whole thing with India has shown that to be wrong- If the demonstrations against the Pakistan support of the US is anything to go by, Musharraf has a hell of a job.

However I think hell be happier with continued US aid and getting rid of the more rabid groups- theyre a threat to him as well- rather than take on a nuclear opponent whose conventional forces vastly outnumber his own.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah I should probably have asked this the first time but Ill ask it now...
What the hell does all that have to do with Pakistan and India potentially going to war over a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliment? Anything at all?

The US invented the "war on terrorism" term which made stuff like international law redundant so it was fairly predictable that any nation with a political conflict could use the new moral code as justification for going militarily mental. The idea that Emperor Dubya is trying to tell the world they must join TWAT (the war against terrorism) or else, then give out about how Israel and India choose to combat "terrorism" is ridiculous. More than anything else TWAT gives already repressive regimes the green light to resort to even more draconian measures.

We can be sure that there are plenty of arms manufacturers in the US and elsewhere who are wetting themselves with glee over the possibility of a big bloody war between two populous nations. Death is their trade.

Sand

So youre saying that the fact the US has stated it will not tolerate terrorism means that other states are following the same reasoning?

Interestingly I saw an interview on Sky News today with an Indian representitive in London (Missed the start of the interview so didnt get his name) at about 5pm. He had interesting things to say, how this incident had little to do with Kashmir and that acts of terrorism including the attack on the Indian Parliment cannot be justified by whether the terrorists have good stories or not.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
So youre saying that the fact the US has stated it will not tolerate terrorism means that other states are following the same reasoning?

It sounds good on paper but the sad truth is that a lot of places are using the "Cry Terrorist" as reasons to attack other countries.

Pakistan is certainly arresting people it has proof of terrorism, but another country which you already weren't too fond of said "Hand over some of your people so we can execute them or else" without evidence, would any sane ruler of a country do so? Now mention of the fact that India was shelling Pakistan despite pakistan trying to deal with the Terrorists.

And is Pakistan harbouring terrorists? After all the US is allied with them on their war on terrorism?

Sand

Dont think you can say "Cry Terrorist" seeing as there was a terrorist attack (there was also an earlier attack against a provincal assembly).

Think there is two tiers in Pakistan. Musharraf has been pretty suportive of the US s anti- terrorist stance, facing down hostile mobs of militants, but those same militants hold a lot of sway withing the pakistani Intelliegence service- The Pentagon for one does not trust the Pakistani Intelligence service.

Void

I would like to point out an additional piece of information. The doom-sayers have already told us that our civilisation will be reduced to rubble after a nuclear exchange between the two belligerents. I would beg to differ...

Up until now global strategic politics has been decidedly bipolar (NATO vs Warsaw Pact). We have now entered unknown territory. Neither side possesses Intercontinental capability. Barring intervention from a third party (most notably China) the weaponry delivered will be limited to medium or small yield fission devices delivered by aircraft, artillery or intermediate range missile (similar range to the SCUD we all know from the gulf war). India has indicated that it has thermonuclear capability, but has not carried out any tests. However, once fission capability has been achieved, it is relatively easy to constuct fusion devices.

I would therefore contend that this conflict could lead to massive casualties in the Indian subcontinent but may not engulf our planet. People should understand the difference between fission weapons (Hiroshima) and thermonuclear weapons (a small Sun). Indeed certain US conventional weapons which MAY have been deployed in Afghanistan MAY have been more destructive than small yield fission devices. Certain Fuel-Air-Explosive weapons (I'm not sure if the 'Daisy-Cutter' falls into this category) have destructive capabilities measured in the kilotons.

If India did invade Pakistan, the defender WILL opt to use tactical nuclear weapons delivered by artillery to shatter troop formations. This is Pakistan's only defence against the overwhelming superiority of it's neighbour. Such weapons, used in the strategic Himalayan passes, would produce "relatively" little fallout and would achieve the desired military effect, thus making their use acceptable to the Pakistani leaders.

I apologise for my use of military jargon, but there IS such a thing as a "small nuclear weapon".

Hobbes

Void take a look at what Chernoybl did. Now imagine 20-30 of them going off in the space of a day.

Sand my comment on "Cry Terrorist" is not a sign of no terrorist, What I am saying is a lot of countries now are crying terrorist as an excuse to do questionable things and assume that it's ok because the US can do it.

Shinji

Comparing tactical nukes to Chernobyl is very misleading. I don't know the details of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, but I'll wager that it's small, dirty fission nukes. These things are messy, but very low yield, so the initial blast is small. While there's a fair bit of radioactive fallout, it tends to be concentrated, because the blast isn't sufficent to send radioactive material particularly high into the atmosphere in any large quantities.

It's not a Good Thing by any measure or means, but neither India nor Pakistan are in a position to cause any serious damage to the rest of the world by their actions. What's more worrying, really, is that they will set a precedent for the use of tac-nukes in smaller conflicts....

Lemming

Originally posted by Shinji
It's not a Good Thing by any measure or means, but neither India nor Pakistan are in a position to cause any serious damage to the rest of the world by their actions. What's more worrying, really, is that they will set a precedent for the use of tac-nukes in smaller conflicts....

What's more disturbing that they [Inda/Pakistan] will be making a certain neighbour (namely China, and to a lesser extent perhaps Russia) VERY nervous, given the proximity of any possible nuke-fight.

Given the size of the nuclear arsenal held by China (and Russia), this is by FAR not a good thing. All it will take is one misunderstanding and one of these countries will launch at an adversary. The response (of the adversary) in that case is to launch nukes at all adversaries, along with its allies doing the same, and you can get the picture from that.

Also, fallout has a habit of spreading using wind/animals. So we could well see a few cases of mutation or increased cancer rates (highly unlikely though)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Shinji
Comparing tactical nukes to Chernobyl is very misleading. I don't know the details of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, but I'll wager that it's small, dirty fission nukes. These things are messy, but very low yield, so the initial blast is small. While there's a fair bit of radioactive fallout, it tends to be concentrated, because the blast isn't sufficent to send radioactive material particularly high into the atmosphere in any large quantities.

Well it was more explaining the effects of fall out.

Radioactive material may not get high into the atmosphere, but supposing one of them decides to blow the nuke in the atmosphere?

Clintons Cat

Even if the War does not go Nuclear,hundreds of thousands will die.Niether side has the ordinance or the inclination to fight a sanitised "surgical precision" style war as witnessed in afganistan.The fact that both sides are regulary shelling each others positions before the war has even formally been announced should give an indication of how nasty this war might get.

The destabilisation of the Entire region was the sole intention of the attacks upon the kashmir regional assembly and the new dehli government buildings.The whole purpose of a terrorist act is to oblige the opponent to react in an overwhelming and unsustainable manner,to use its force against itself,in this case indias massive armed forces,which unlike pakistan has not had the sanctions imposed after breaking non prolliferation treaty lifted.
The reasoning being india has the means to enter a war with pakistan <given a 3:1 military advantage> but with international ostrication that would inevitably follow being unable to sustain the war effort,forcing a stalemate that has prevailed since partition.The reasoning of those planning the terrorist attacks being that an India brought to the brink of bankruptcy/internal collapse and international pariahood would be more willing to negotiate over the future of kashmir.

Indias isolation since the september 11 attacks and susequent reversal of US foreign policy ,[seeing pakistan upsurp indias position as Closest US ally,and seeing its own relevence marginalised to insignificance has been a bone of contention in Indias Government and media for months now]
It is a situation that if unchecked will undoubtably lead sooner or later to war between Pakistan and india,even if the present Crisis is averted.
Though how to address indias concerns without undoing much of the progress made by Mushareff in reforming Pakistan and most importantly curtailing the influence of the pakistan Interservices Intelligence(ISI) is probally one of the most delicate balancing acts of diplomacy imaginable.


May common sense prevail

.......................


Clintons Cat Amphetimine free since Sept 1st.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Dont think you can say "Cry Terrorist" seeing as there was a terrorist attack (there was also an earlier attack against a provincal assembly).

No, but while there was a terrorist attack, no proof appears to have been offered that it was definitely Pakistani in origin.

I could be wrong on this, but the Indians handed pakistan a list of names of people that they wanted handed over. These people are wanted for "crimes against humanity" by he Indians, such as terrorism, arms-smuggling, drug-trafficking, etc. However, all that Pakistan was given was a list, and an ultimatum.

This is a frowing international trend. When Sheron and his army went on thier latest anti-Palestine campaign, they made a public speech that sounded like it had been cut n pasted from Dubya's various speeches. Israel had terrorism thrust upon them. They would fight for peace, doing whatever it took. They were a peaceful people, but fearsome once angered. Terrorism had to be stamped out. Blah blah blah. They then supplied a list of people they demanded be handed over. No proof, just a list of people.

India have now done the same to Pakistan.

What worries me is the acceptance many of us appear to have for the aggrieved parties. None of them have provided proof along with their lists of names/targets. None of them have shown an inclination to negotiate. They all follow "the US approach" - demand, and threaten military action if refused. Carry out said military action when refused, justifying it under the new "fight against terrorism" banner.

Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists, but I am very wary of our international politics devolving to a "demand/threaten/attack" process, which is where it appears to be rapidly haeading.

jc

Sand

The Bill Clinton approach of crying in public, firing a few missles at some tent in a desert and hoping those bad people will have learnt their lesson seems to be an appropriate alternative- oh wait 9/11. Okay that comes across as a bit sarky, but personally I for one am glad that states have made the decision not to tolerate terrorism. Eventually states that harbour terrorists will get the idea that if they dont want to be under thret of milatary acton they should cut off aid to these terrorists. Terrorists themselves will learn that they cant "win". Much like Nazism , terrorism needs to be defeated first.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Bill Clinton approach of crying in public, firing a few missles at some tent in a desert and hoping those bad people will have learnt their lesson seems to be an appropriate alternative- oh wait 9/11. Okay that comes across as a bit sarky,

I would have used a word like "blinkered" rather than "sarky", if you are trying in any way to imply that there are only two options - those being one which is obviously ineffective, and the other being the current course of action.

I would even use a stronger term than blinkered, but I'm being polite

but personally I for one am glad that states have made the decision not to tolerate terrorism.

Absolutely. I just find it worrying that, without exception, they have levelled their demands at various nations without supplying evidence.

Taking a stand against terrorism is all well and good, but should we not be also making sure that it is a fight against terrorism. India has demanded that something like 20 people to be handed over for prosecution, without offering any proof that these people are terrorists. Israel has done the same to Palestine. America did the same to Afghanistan.

While I recognise that in most cases, the people being asked for *are* terrorists, I find it disturbing that the world is blindly jumping on to this "they called him a terrorist, so you must be wrong in harbouring him" idea.

All I'm asking for is a sembalnce of normality. If you want someone to be handed over, you supply credible reasoning and/or proof. Better still, avoid the problem entirely, and set up an international crimes court so that an international body could....oh, no, wait, the US shot that one down....

As for the ridiculous comment about Nazism, I would suggest that you take a look at neo-Nazism around the world Sand, and tell me exactly how this has been defeated?

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey


Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists, but I am very wary of our international politics devolving to a "demand/threaten/attack" process, which is where it appears to be rapidly haeading.

jc

No,no,no bonkey, you missed the point. Anyone who disagrees with said ultimatums is a communist/terrorist/non-us-national to be put on trial without jury, this is the way "free and fair" democracies espouse their freedoms via foreign policy, and to find fault with it makes you a communist arts student

Sand

Given the fact that Afghanistan became terrorist unfriendly inside about two months the current strategy is extremely effective. What other option is as quick or as effective in dealing with intransigent regimes like the Taliban who harbour terrorists? International courts to try a crime that was committed in America? Whats wrong with the American system?

Bonkey listen to what your saying- Your saying you agree the list India has provided is accurate- Yet at the same time your saying India isnt justified in expecting to bring these terrorists to justice? Why?

Nazism was defeated utterly milatarily, then came the political solution of denazification of Germany and trials of Nazi leaders. Its important to note the timing of the political solution , after the complete milatary victory. As for neo- nazis theyre just powerless fringe groups, their right to free speech already prevented. So unless you want to bring back political re-education and thought police...let em spout their rubbish- its not like anybody but fools listen to them.

Hobbes

International courts to try a crime that was committed in America? Whats wrong with the American system?

prehaps it has something to do with..

a) Al-Quida (OBL especially) are wanted by the UN for crimes against humanity.

b) The US has is for-going a trial with some of the people and going straight to kill on sight.

c) The UN does not have the death penalty.

Actually I see the UK have said if they get to OBL first they will only hand him over to the US on strict conditions. The UK isn't too pleased with the way the US is conducting it's tribunals.