Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NUAir
Topic Author
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 4:24 am

Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Sun Dec 30, 2001 8:15 pm

According to several news sources including the BBC. Leaders of all of Indias political parties have agreed to unite against Pakistan if a war were to commence....

So what are the chances that either of these two countries would use their nuclear weapons against each other? What stance will the US, EU and other countries take?

from the BBC:
Pakistan has warned that a minor provocation could escalate into an all-out war with India.

The two countries have ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said the use of such weapons should be "inconceivable".

But he warned that any "small action would trigger a chain of action and reaction, leading to a conflict that neither side desires".

The show of unity in Delhi came as Pakistani military officials reported that India had made further preparations for war, by moving its eastern command to their common border.

The president urged President Musharraf to take additional strong, decisive measures to eliminate the extremists who seek to... provoke a war between India and Pakistan

White House spokesman
This was a step which preceded previous conflicts in 1965 and 1971, and Pakistan says it may have to respond by redeploying troops from the Afghan border.



"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
 
[email protected]
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Mon Dec 31, 2001 12:15 am

I'm absolutely sick of this war business. War, war , war and fighting, we've got it everywhere. Middle east, africa, south asia and conflicts in south america. I am just so SICK of hearing about war in every corner of the bloody planet, just wish it all stops and we all live in peace.

Regards
[email protected]
In Arsene we trust!!
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Mon Dec 31, 2001 2:03 am

War is the natural state of human society. Ever since the first pseudohuman picked up the first rock to throw at another pseudohuman human beings have been fighting.
Sad, but won't change anytime soon.
I wish I were flying
 
JAL
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Mon Dec 31, 2001 4:40 am

I pray that there will be peace in the world.
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Tue Jan 01, 2002 3:07 am

Don't hold your breath. The only time there will be true peace is when humans eradicate themselves.  Sad
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Tue Jan 01, 2002 2:01 pm

Our constitution forbids the Government from being the first to use nuclear weapons. So a nuclear first strike from our side is totally ruled out.

The major fear is that the Pakistani leadership would use them when the saw the war going badly which would provoke an immediate reaction from us.

But i personally dont see this happening. India's major aim is to topple the military regime there, "secularise" the polity there and bring in the democratic process, so that the issue of Kashmir can be settled. India cannot and will not negotiate with a military dictatorship.

This will also have a larger benefit. Pakistan has been amajor impediment in boosting India's ties with the US as well. Despite being "natural allies", relations between the worlds largest democracies remains strained because of America's continued support to Pakistani terrorist groups becuase of their own strategic compulsions.

Lets look at it from another angle: The Pakistan Army has been the condom that America is using for its war on Afghanistan. America seems reluctant to dump this add-on, so India has to do this dirty job of removing this impediment in the interest of furthering oour own relations with the US.

These aims can be achieved through limited military action or commando strikes as well. So the use fo nuclear weapons can be safely ruled out.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3891
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Tue Jan 01, 2002 11:01 pm

Then why spend billions of dollars on developing these weapons when everyone knows they won't be used? Was it all just a large powertrip? Everyone should get rid of these weapons right now.
Attamottamotta!
 
Guest

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Tue Jan 01, 2002 11:19 pm

Indianguy

I have to agree with you on this one. All the talk of this "impending war" going nuclear has been from the Pakistani side. I have yet to see anything from the Indian side threatening nuclear war. Am I right there?
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 12:59 am

Peter, countries have nukes because other coutries have nukes. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Hopefully, India and Pak will come to the same understanding the Americans and Soviets had of 'mutually assured destruction'.
"Shaddap you!"
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:59 am


Then why spend billions of dollars on developing these weapons when everyone knows they won't be used?


To ensure that NO ONE can use them against us without suffering unacceptable damage to their own cities. Unlike some of the *other* nuclear powers, our nukes are aimed at other nuclear armed states pointing their nukes at us.
 
donder10
Posts: 6945
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 3:55 am

The theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction)is the underlying nuclear attack detterent and was at the centre of the US anti-ballistic treaty with Russia.Basiclly it states that neither side will attack first because if they do then the other side will retaliate.It has worked so far, but I can see Bush's concerns about it not applying to certain people who don't care if they are killed i.e terrorists.But thats another matter
Alex
 
strickerje
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 1:35 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:42 am

Pakistan has warned that a minor provocation could escalate into an all-out war with India.
But didn't Pakistan start it?? Now I know that the Pakistani government didn't actually attack the Indian parliament, but the terrorists who did were from Pakistan and the Pakistani government is making no serious effort to apologize for it or catch these terrorists. Then Pakistan, worried about a retaliation from India, prepare for full-scale nuclear war. Is it just my imagination or to the Pakistanis and Afghans just enjoy wars and killing?

All the talk of this "impending war" going nuclear has been from the Pakistani side. I have yet to see anything from the Indian side threatening nuclear war. Am I right there?
That's the way I see it too. If India's not threatening war, why is Pakistan so adamant about preparing for war?

-Jeffrey S.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2574
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:54 am

That's the way I see it too. If India's not threatening war, why is Pakistan so adamant about preparing for war?

Because it serves their interests to play on everyone's fears by talking about an imminent nuclear war, and thereby obfuscate the main issue:
1. Their explicit support, backing and harboring of terrorists.
2. Their blatant lies when India requests them to extradite these same terrorists for trial in India.
3. Their refusal to accept proof that implicates, along with the terrorists, at least a section of their military intelligence as an accomplice in 12/13/01 Indian Parliament attack and others, DESPITE the fact that other nations like US and EU members agree the proof is conclusive.

India's punitive actions have been restricted to
1. Travel blockades in the form of severing rail and road links.
2. Abrogation of the Indus Water Treaty that allows us to stop the flow of river water to Pakistan (since India is upstream).
3. Denial of Indian airspace to Pakistani civilian air traffic, thereby making routes to Bangladesh and SE Asia difficult for them.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:33 pm


The investigations into 13/12 have established some facts:
1. The Pakistan Army (as distinct from Pak intelligence) was directly involved in the planning and execution of the attack.

2. The Generals in Rawalpindi had moved their strike formations into the "Chickens Neck" area of the International Border BEFORE 13/12. This obviously shows that they were fully aware that something *big* was to happen that would provoke the Indians into responding.

3. The original plan was to strike the IGI airport terminals in New Delhi, and blowing up parked aircraft just like the LTTE did in Colombo. BUt the terrorists and their advisors changed their plans to attack the Parliament bldg, because Musharraf wanted something *big*.

It is well known, (despite the benefit of doubt that Americans are giving the Paksitanis) that bin Laden has indeed sneaked into Pakistan and is staying in the NWFP province of Pakistan as the guest of the ISI. This was the quid-pro-quo that Musharraf had promised the other generals to get their support in making his 180 degree turn wrt the Taleban. This whole act of stage managing the terrorist strike on India was to provoke India into a conflict and divert the American attention. The talk of a *nuclear conflict* is enough to provoke the gullible American adminstration into intervening, while the Pak generals make arrangements for OBL's repatriation. And this is something they have succeeded in.

There is one thing that we Indians must accept. The Pakistani Army generals understand the American mindset better than we do. They know how exploit the gullibility and arrogance of the US administration to the hilt, which they have done fantastically.

But having said that, We still have to find a way to destroy this menace. There is only one place for dictatorships like the one in Pakistan, and that is in the rubbish bin of history. India is now committed to do just that, regardless of whether Washington approves of this or not.

Despite this commitment to finish the regime of Musharraf, India is a responsible democracy, and we understand that Nuclear weapons are the weapons of LAST CHOICE. WE have many even more effective weapons that we can and will use in our war against the rogue regime, and that is something that Western nations must understand. Our govt is not intent on behaving like irresponsible Texan cowboys on a Ranch as some *other* countrys' leaders have behaved not so very long ago!  Wink/being sarcastic. War is a serious business, and while entering the War Room, we shall make sure that the Cowboy boots and hats and all other accesories are kept outside.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

The most powerful weapon is of economic sanctions. One way is to starve Pakistan by building up the scale of the economic blockade on Pakistan, and enforcing it militarily if necessary. This should lead to civil unrest and automatically bring down that military regime. We should also make it a pre-condition that Western countries who do business with the military regime in Pakistan shall not be allowed access to the Indian market.

We can also provide large subsidies to Indian exporters of Rice, Wheat and other major exports of Pakistan. India has over 60 million tonnes of Rice surplus as of date, enough to feed India for another 2 years if need be, so such subsidies should not be a problem. There could be similar measures in Textiles as well to enable Indian exporters to undercut the Pakistani exports. Both textiles and processed rice are major forex earners for Pakistan, and any such moves would surely bring down the Pakistani economy, and substantially erode its ability to wage war on anyone.

A major diplomatic effort has to be undertaken to ensure that Western countries do not prop up the military regime by providing economic aid in any form. While the members of the British Commonwealth share our concerns, America should be expected to be a hard nut to crack in this regard especially with the Republican Party in power there, which has displayed a history of anti-India behavior in the past 50 years. But I am sure that at the end of the day, considering its own concerns on these issues, America will not want to be caught on the wrong side of the history books.

On the military front, We could very well turn Pakistans Kargil incursion theories inside out, and borrow a chapter from the books of our Israeli friends by limited incursions into Pakistani territory to capture and establish "buffer zones" just like what Israel has done, while at the same time avoiding all-out war.

In the long run, these measures are likely to be more beneficial than an all out military campaign, even a conventional one.

So from where I see it, there is NO THREAT at all of a nuclear war or even a conventional war, because right now there are other options to be explored.


 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:55 pm

Indianguy...some of your comments are ridiculous and extremely anti-US.

"The talk of a *nuclear conflict* is enough to provoke the gullible American adminstration into intervening".
-- that 'gullible' American administration is the one that provides $B in aid to India and continues the policy of accepting k's of retched, poor Indian migrants to the US each year. Shouldn't you be more grateful of the US?

"The Pakistani Army...know how exploit the gullibility and arrogance of the US administration to the hilt".
-- nice one... you manage to insult the Pakistani's and the US in one sentence.

"the Republican party...has displayed a history of anti-India behavior in the past 50 years"
-- this is hardly true. It was India that aligned itself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was not pushed. During this time, all US govts continued with massive aid to India (much of which seems to have been wasted).

"India is a responsible democracy"
-- really? India can't feed or educate its own people. It's population growth and poverty are horrendous and some of the worst in the world. India can hardly be called a responsible democracy with its economic and social problems.

"Our govt is not intent on behaving like irresponsible Texan cowboys on a Ranch as some *other* countrys' leaders have behaved not so very long ago! . War is a serious business, and while entering the War Room, we shall make sure that the Cowboy boots and hats and all other accesories are kept outside."
-- this is a ridiculous comment coming from an Indian. There is absolutely no comparison betw US military history & capability and that of India's, a poor third world country. Have you honestly looked at your own country recently?

Your vitriol for Pakistan is so strong you drag comments about the US into your rant. What nonsense.






I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2574
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:27 pm

the policy of accepting k's of retched, poor Indian migrants to the US each year. Shouldn't you be more grateful of the US?

I'd argue against this, since a majority of those coming to the US from India are skilled workers in professional areas like IT and medicine, looking for opportunities in what is definitely the country with the best prospects for them. This is validated by the fact that Indians, by and large, started arriving in the late 1960s, when immigration laws made it easier for skilled people to stay back in the US and work.

Such people are predominantly middle-class and would scarcely qualify as 'wretchedly poor'. The US has been the land of opportunities for people from just about any other nation in the world, rich or poor.

Indians are the richest immigrant population in the US, much more so than those from China, Japan, Korea or any other nation, and this has been the case for quite a few years.

While it is American policy that made it possible for Indians to come there, it is our ability to thrive in an environment that values hard work (which India doesn't really provide, except in places like Bangalore, Hyderabad etc) that has allowed us to succeed to such an extent within a short period of time.
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:34 pm

I will agree with BarfBag, an overwhelming amount of Indian Migrants are intellegent, college educated individuals with background in medicine and technology. However, on all of the other points made by Yyz717, I agree with him completely. Indianguy, you should take a look at India's current state. I wouldn't exactly call the standard of living up to par with some of the other democracies, still, it doesn't mean your government is not trying.

UAL747
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Dasa
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 9:25 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 4:39 pm

Yyz717, rather than providing real facts to back up your contention, you seem to just try to refute points made by others. Do you have anything really constructive to add to this post?
It seems that you are just posting here because you have some sort of hatred towards Indians, or you just cannot stand anyone criticising Western countries.


_____________________
Das.A
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 4:52 pm

Debasing the vitriolic anti-Western and anti-Pakistani comments coming from Indianguy is pretty constructive.

Dasa.....another Indian apologist? (although you also seem to be living the good and easy life in the West).
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 7:30 pm

Indianguys are not so much anti-Western and anti-Pakistani as they TRUTH.

Let's get some facts in here

INDIA

* Over 1 billion people makes it the world's largest democracy. Yes they do experience some problems in their elections (which country doesn't), yet throughout its modern history, democracy in India has never been threatened by extremists or civil war, etc.
* Developing country, but has burgeoning modern industry and economy. Just look at cities such as Bangalore to see this.
* Secular state in which Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc, etc are free to practice their religion.

PAKISTAN

* Ever since independence their government has been in turmoil, with military coup after military coup. Corruption in the government is just like second nature to Pakistani officials, who have been ineffective in handling fundamentalisms inside it's borders.
* Was instrumental in setting up the extreme Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Only dropped their support under threat of sanctions, or worse.
* Economy is up to shit, largely because of no-policy under the military regime.
* "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" - need I say more?

KASHMIR

* Controlled by Pakistani, Indian and Chinese (since they invaded sovereign Indian territory)
* Long and varied history going back several hundred years.
* Although some say it is Muslim, Kashmir had always been a region in which Muslim and Hindu had been able to live side by side in harmony.
* Pakistan has started 2 wars with India over the Kashmir region. Pakistan believe that because Kashmir is Muslim, it should be part of the greater "Islamic Republic".
* The UN recognises Kashir (Jammu and Kashmir) to be disputed territory and recognises that the people of Kashmir are entitled to decide their own future.

On this last point. India recognises this fact, but under a climate of terrorism, it is impossible to hold any type of referendum in which the result will truly be the will of the people. Lets say that Kashmiris were to vote tomorrow in a referendum, and that result was in favour of total independence. India would probably honour the result, but would Pakistan? I don't believe so. The regime in Pakistan would not be happy until Kashmir is controlled by Karachi as part of the Islamic Republic.

US

* A democracy of 250 million people
* Developed country with a high standard of living
* On 11/9/2001 terrorists struck at America; flying 2 aircraft into the World Trade Centre, 1 into the Pentagon and 1 crashing in Pennsylvania.

On this last point:

Indianguy, I hate to say this, but the attack on the Indian parliament was probably a good thing if only for testing the resolve of one George W. Bush on his self-proclaimed Worldwide War on Terrorism.

To the American people, the World Trade Centre represents what democracy means to a lot of Americans; freedom, money and trade. So it wasn't only a building which was attacked, but the psyche of the people.

In early December, Pakistani-backed terrorists attacked to storm the Indian Parliament in New Delhi to blow it up. To the Indian people, this Parliament represents freedom and democracy (Just the same as Parliament House in Canberra represents Australian democracy, or the Beehive would represent democracy to a New Zealanders, or the House of Lords would represent democracy to the Brits).

Remember, it was George Bush who said:

"Make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them"

"Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." - Insert Indians for Americans and you will see why the Indians are pissed.

"This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom."

"The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what -- we're not going to allow it."

Maybe these quotes will explain why Indians are pissed. America gets attacked by terrorists, and their government expects the whole world to rally around their cause. India gets attacked, and the whole world tells them to "back off" and "negotiate" (even though the Americans often say "We will not negotiate with terrorists").

Why the double standards?

 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 7:36 pm

I personally have a lot of respect for India...I was just responding to Indianguys comments. I believe there are many things in BOTH nations (India and Pakistan) that need to be addressed and corrected.

UAL747
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4688
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:24 pm

Unfortunatley, it appears to be a question of "when" as opposed to "if".
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:49 pm

Speaking the truth makes people anti-Western? Saying that America is making a mistake makes me anti-American? Puhleeze!!
 
Aussiemite
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 12:04 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:03 am

Remember, it was George Bush who said:

"Make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them"


I saw the double standards a mile off. It happend sooner then I thought but it did happen.

The Australian government is recommending Australian companies move their application development and telephone help desk to India. Already some huge Aussie bank has about 700 employees in India working on projects. It's a real shitter for the Australian IT sector but great for India.

Unlike Pakistan India is full of educated and smart people. If you look at Pakistans history theyre not very impressive. For George Dubya to back Pakistan on this is a joke.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:39 am

I figure the only reason 'Dubya' is backing Pakistan is the likely that OBL is there and that they are neighbors to Afganistan. Perhaps even the fact that a whole bunch of Afganistan people migrated there.

As soon as our work is done there, we'll pull out and blame Pakistan for all it's ills, they'll panic and send a bomb where it shouldn't be. That's when the war will start.  Sad
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
EWRvirgin
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 11:38 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:08 am

To AV and others:

It is not a double-standard. You need to step back and look at the whole picture. The US is taking the lead in eradicating terrorism not only because we were attacked viciously but also because we have the biggest guns.

The main point you need to understand is that at the moment the US is focused on OBL and Al-Qaeda. To accomplish our goals we need the cooperation of many governments (hence this 'coalition' that was formed). If that means that India needs to take a chill pill for the time being, so be it. This will ensure that we continue to get as much cooperation from Pakistan as possible. This will only help countries like India in the long-run because its one less Islamic-extremist group that they have to deal with.

What good would it do for the US to rally India to attack Pakistan? It would create a total mess in that region and when the dust settled OBL and his cronies' whereabouts would be even more in question.

Sometimes you just have to put your cynicism aside and have some good old-fashioned faith in our leaders and the decisions they make for they are the ones with the full details and scope of the matter.

If this sounds arrogant then, I'm sorry, but we're calling the shots and when this campaign is over all will be better off including India. We both have a common enemy but this war has made strange bedfellows.


On another note: US population as of the latest census is around 283 million. I wish it was 250 mil because its getting a little crowded. Perhaps someone will want to start a new topic on pop. control and its impact on the world and US.
 
Stratofish
Posts: 1043
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 9:22 am

Although i don´t advocate the double-standard, I see some sense in it.

The US and some others of the "West" is fighting a "war on terror" (just to mention official vocabulary). India and Pak. are not fighting terror. They continue to fight over a dispute that lasts as long as both states exist in their current way. Those countries hate each other for historical and religious reasons.
Now India wants the world to believe they ONLY want to fight terror.
I have searched the archives of Indian newspapers and I must say apart from Kashmir, India has FAR greater problems than terror. Therefore I see sense in the double-standards.

Btw, the standard behaviour among nuclear powers is: DON´T EVEN THINK ABOUT WAR WITH ANOTHER, LET ALONE MENTION IT PUBLICLY!
The Metro might be the Sub(optimal)way
 
Aussiemite
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 12:04 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 9:35 am

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/01/nterry01.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/12/01/ixhome.html

Grammar is the first casualty of war.

EWRvirgin OK Mr World Policeman next time I wanna take a piss I will ask you permission.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:20 am

The US population is quite manageable. Indeed, it is not replacing itself. As is the case with most Western nations.

India & Pakistan have signif population/birth control problems. Indeed, much of their economic growth is effectively for nothing as pop growth ensures that PCI grows much slower than total economic growth. Birth control should actually be the number one social & economic issue in these 2 countries given the retchedness and over-crowding experienced by most of their pops. Indian population is sked to pass that of China early in the next 10 years or so.

Regarding the poosibility of a war, there was an interesting editorial in Canada's national newspaper today basically stating that the world should step aside and leave India & Pakistan to each other. Even a nuclear war is unlikely to affect any other countries due to their crude weapons. However, the widespread nuclear devastation in India & Pakistan would likely simply remind the rest of the world of the dangers of nuclear weapons. The rest of the world has no signif economic, strategic, or resource investments in India/Pakistan so the effect of a war on the world economy would be minimal or non-existent. The article did not advocate a war, but said that India & Pakistan are certainly no threat to anyone else.

Interesting article.....I couldn't but agree with it.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2574
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:36 pm

Dasa.....another Indian apologist? (although you also seem to be living the good and easy life in the West).

Yyz717: You branded me with this tag and now DasA. Are you trying to imply that 'living the good and easy life' in the West automatically disqualifies Indians from commenting on anything at all against the West ? Well sorry, since you don't seem to be 'living the hard and difficult life' in India, I suggest that you take your condescending sermons about what you think of Indian democracy or population and place it within your posterior cavity.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:30 pm

Yet another emotional outburst from Barfbag.

Well Barfbag, a discussion forum is for the airing of contrary opinions. Telling me to stick my sermons in my 'posterior cavity' speaks volumes about your emotional control. These comments are a fast-track way of getting banned.

Hopefully the Indian army on the front lines with Pakistan are less wound up than you are in Pittsburgh PA.







I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
EWRvirgin
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 11:38 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 5:11 pm

EWRvirgin OK Mr World Policeman next time I wanna take a piss I will ask you permission

...and don't you forget it!

Anyway, I also agree that neither India or Pakistan are much a threat to the rest of the world. But, given the current situation the US position should be understandable. Also, I can see somewhere in the future the US courting India as a counterweight to China's influence in Asia. As someone else pointed out its more a situation where they can't get along with each other than of terrorism (how many wars/skirmishes have they fought?).
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 5:41 pm

Actually BarfBag, methinks yyZ717's "facial cavity" does most of the "job" usually reserved for the "posterior cavity"! So perhaps its THAT which needs to be plugged.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2574
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Thu Jan 03, 2002 5:46 pm

Well Barfbag, a discussion forum is for the airing of contrary opinions. Telling me to stick my sermons in my 'posterior cavity'...

Yyz717 ma cherie, did you forget what you said about a discussion forum being meant for airing contrary opinions ? My earlier response just happens to be my opinion on what I think of your opinion  Smile

I'm sure your blanket response to Dasa and me about being 'Indian apologists living the good life in the west' is an unemotional, unbiased statement of extreme relevance. Really, I think so  Yeah sure

Some of your statements definitely have merit, and I hold nothing against them. But for the rest, I'll rebut them with whatever facts I have to back me up.

These comments are a fast-track way of getting banned.

You must be looking forward to it, eh ?

Hopefully the Indian army on the front lines with Pakistan are less wound up than you are in Pittsburgh PA.

I'm NOWHERE near Pittsburgh, cupcake.
 
Notar520AC
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:53 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Fri Jan 04, 2002 12:28 pm

You people are so immature. Back to the subject- This is the way nuclear warfare works- if we or someone else blows up someone else and sends their country into a green glowing wasteland for hundreds of years, that country's allies will say, "Hey, what the hell did you do that for?" and blow them, or us up. Then the process starts over again. If we make a move, someone else will target us, again, and then we'll blow them up, and then we'll have the whole world playing Nuclear chess- "CHECKMATE!" BOOM! Everyone's dead! Same thing with biological. We're sitting ducks, and if we blow whoever to hell, they'll douse us in oil and flambe us while we're running around in circles trying to figure out which idot pressed the launch button and blame it on them and skewer them and roast them over an open fire. Now, if we wipe out every other country in the world who is a potential threat, then that's a different story, but that will severely deplete our economy, immediately ceasing trade and travel, unless we want radioactive glowing fish served over a veggie platter at our dinner table.
BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Fri Jan 04, 2002 12:53 pm

Apparently even a full out nuclear war betw India/Pakistan will primarily cause devastation to only those 2 countries. Neither side has many n/weapons and no 2nd strike capability. The article I read said that nuclear fallout would be minimal. IE, the rest of the world has little to worry about from a nuclear war betw Ind/Pak whether economically or environmentally.

Don't forget, their nuclear technology is very crude (by Western/1st world standards).

The world probably has probably far more to fear in the long term from the unbridled population growth of India & Pakistan.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2574
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Nuclear War, Ind Vs. Pak

Fri Jan 04, 2002 2:10 pm

I'd like to state some points:
1. Actually the way nuclear weapons work is defined by one word: deterrence. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. It would take an extra-ordinarily stupid command and control to even comtemplate a nuclear attack on a nuclear armed nation. This applies to India and Pakistan as much as to US and Russia, or US and China. Buildups and chest-thumping has been done by US and USSR for 5 decades, that led to nothing more than the implosion of the latter.
3. I'd argue the world was much closer to seeing a nuclear conflict in the heady days of the cold war than right now. There was a much greater buildup during the 1999 Kargil misadventure by Pakistan; anyone in India can tell you that.
4. I'd further argue that the current situation receives a lot of press for the simple reason that the US is nearby and would not like India-Pakistan relations to rock their boat.

The very nature of the current situation, coupled with past precedent, is enough to indicate that the danger of nuclear war is very low. Everything thats happening on the borders now started with the Indian Parliament attack on Dec.13. India's primary demand is that those guilty be handed over to it, and that terrorist camps be dismantled and cross-border terrorism from Pakistan halted permanently. Evidently, pressure from US and India is yielding results in this aspect, and India will continue to pressurize Pakistan for more action against the thugs in their army and religious schools.

To compare the relative maturity of the two countries, try taking a look at the Kargil episode:
Pakistan: Mounts a secret incursion of Indian territory using army regulars disguised as terrorists. Lies through their teeth about it. Gets thoroughly beaten by Indian forces. Roughly 1500 dead. Refuses to claim the bodies of their own soldiers, despite enough information/evidence for India to even state what corps/regiment each Pakistani dead belonged to. Five Indian captured soldiers are tortured, killed and mutilated, before having their bodies returned.
India: Takes heavy casualities (~500) because Pakistanis are entrenched uphill; refuses to cross into Pakistani territory to block supply to the entrenched fighters. Prefers to take loss of life to a counter-attack into Pakistani territory (and risking a larger war), still manages to comprehensively rout the enemy within its own borders.

Pakistan knows its weapons are a deterrent against India, and that the latter would be foolish to risk danger to its large cities from a Pakistani nuclear strike. On the other hand they also know India has enough strategic depth to take a hit from them and then come back to obliterate them. Deterrent, MAD or whatever else you call it, its there.

Neither side has many n/weapons and no 2nd strike capability.

This is partly true. There's no concrete figure of how many nukes each country has, but I'd venture to put it at roughly 2:1 in India's favor.

As for second strike, India's nuclear delivery platforms include ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, Tu-95 (NATO codename Bear) and Tu-22 (NATO: Backfire) bombers, coupled with much greater strategic depth in terms of land area. That does constitute second strike capability.

Don't forget, their nuclear technology is very crude (by Western/1st world standards).

Again, this is true. While I do believe India has tactical/strategic nukes and thermonuclear weapons, I don't believe they are as potent as they are claimed to be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alfa164, ArchGuy1, kalvado, MaverickM11, sabenapilot and 38 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos