or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nuclear War?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nuclear War?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-80387.html" target="_blank">http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-80387.html</a>

What would this mean to the U.S. and the rest of the world? Would other nations get involved? What if some U.S. troops stationed on the Pakistani-Afghan border were killed by an Indian nuke?
post #2 of 11
If there is a war, it is not likely to go nuclear unles one side or the other is very close to losing the war conventinally. In that case the nuclear strikes would be at major population centers and would not effect American soldiers except for fallout problems. Will it come to this - let's hope not. Hopefully the UN or US or both will step in before even a conventional war starts. The other hope is that India accepts what Pakistan has already done to crack down on terrorist organizations with the recent arrest of several leaders of terrorist organizations in Pakistan.
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
post #3 of 11
While I doubt anyone there wants a nuclearized battlefield, I also doubt the ability of the two sides to control themselves. (I would say the same thing about the U.S and USSR if this was 1984) However, there are a few critical differences here that make the situation more dangerous than most Cold War crises.

- The involvement of troops from both countries. Unlike the Cold War, this is not a conflict where two proxy armies are facing off. While there are some proxy forces engaged in the conflict (just ask John Walker, he's a veteran of it) you mostly have two nations locking horns directly.

- The size of Pakistan. There isn't much breathing room for them if they were to be invaded, they might very quickly feel that their nation's existance is threatened. This is the reason they cultivated Afganastan as a client state. Nowm they have nowhere to fall back to.

- The proximity of the two nations. There is no Europe to fight a protracted conventional war in without risking the homeland. Kashmir is a nice little disputed territory, but fighting there doesn't give much hope of buying either side much time to work things out, as the war would most likely spread to one nation's land or another within a short time.

- The difficulty in responding to responding to a nuclear first strike. If someone launches a missle at the U.S, there are about 15-30 minutes in which the U.S can respond to it. This is the basis of MAD. A first strike via missle is a really, really dumb idea. The attacking country has no hope of eliminating the ability of the U.S to wipe out their own nation before their missles hit. In this conflict however, you have two nations right next to each other. One launches, the other stands a good chance of being SOL. And both sides know this very well. Therefore, Launch On Warning becomes the main concern. The idea behind Launch On Warning is that one side thinks the other side is going to launch a nuclear attack knowing there is too little time to initiate a respone, so they are pushed into launching a preemtptive nuclear strike to eliminate the chance of that happening. This actually came into the spotlight a few years ago, when in one incident, India was convinced Pakistan was going to launch a first strike, so they seriously considered a nuclear release to prevent it. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.

However, there is nothing to say such an incident can't happen again.

And with actual fighting going on between the two armies, it would be less likely that someone would say "OK, let's just sit down and think this one through."

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]</p>
post #4 of 11
Here in the U.S. we have protection from a lone ICBM hitting our soil. Its an anti-ballistic missile called Pegasus and its fired from an F-15 Eagle streaking upward towards the stratosphere. Pegasus becomes ineffective only when the inbound missile mirvs and you're faced with many independent warheads.

As for Pakistan and India, chances of their lobbing nukes at eachother is pretty good. I think we're gonna see it, and soon. They've been escalating military readiness conditions steadily, and a friend of mine in Pakistan says government and military folks he knows are scared. Enough so that some have moved their families out of the country. :eek:
post #5 of 11
Presently, at least, they are doing as much talking with each other as posturing at each other. If this changes then we can expect a major attack from one country or the other. On a personal basis I don't think that this will happen and if it does I think that the US will step in. Our agenda in the area is about terrorists not destabilizing the region or allowing 2 of our "allies" to. It may take the "my nuclear capabilities are bigger than both your nuclear capabilites" line, but I'm sure that we are indicating to them that this situation is rapidly becoming a no, no.
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
post #6 of 11
After seeing fully fueled airliners smash into buildings here my realities have changed over there with India/Pakistan.

Paskistan would be the first to push the button. India's armed forces and weapons stockpiles are HUGE compared to Pakistan's. And Pakistan is on the verge of political breakdown. The only thing stopping the conflict right now is because we are still in Afganistan, remember.

Just read an article in Vanity Fair (with Tom - yuck- Cruise on the cover) about Pakistan and it was quite enightening. What a mess the WHOLE Middle East is in. I can smell the fuses burning...

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #7 of 11
[quote]Presently, at least, they are doing as much talking with each other as posturing at each other. <hr></blockquote>

Most wars start this way.
post #8 of 11
I am more worried about an anti-American faction getting hold of a warhead.

I'm not in favor of nuclear excahnges ANYWHERE on Earth, but it's much better for two nations to exhange their own single warheads (all they can afford) and everyone, EVERYONE, else gets angry at them.
The anti-nuke fronts of all nations will rise in fury at the damadge to the environement. The two combatants will find themselves shunned. At worst case, they are crushed by their angry neighbors like in Civilization I.
post #9 of 11
Angry neighbors like the Chinese? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Hopefully they can come to some kind of agreement here. This is very much like the Israel - Palestine conflict.

It is a dispute over land, and the stronger side has decided that the leader of the weaker side has not done enough to stop terrorism.

But Pakistan (the 'weaker' side) has weapons of mass destruction whereas Palestine does not. In this case, both sides think they are right, that the other side is way out of line, and both think that the other will attack at any moment.

Hopefully the two leaders will sit down and discuss this at the upcoming conference both are attending, but it doesn't look like a promising situation.
post #10 of 11
How did these indians get nuclear weapons anyway? Didn't we take care of them when we put them on th reservations?
post #11 of 11
[quote]Originally posted by spindler:
<strong>How did these indians get nuclear weapons anyway? Didn't we take care of them when we put them on th reservations?</strong><hr></blockquote>

they make quite a profit in those casinos of theirs...
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nuclear War?