Contrary to what you have been told, human actions don't cause much global impact on the earth (either atomsphere or land).
So... Global warming, NOT because of the humans, it's just the earth adjusting its temperature.
Global cooling due human's nuclear weapons fallout, impossible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Evidence to suggest this? We have ~10,000 nuclear warheads. Russia has as many. The other superpower also have numbers in the thousands. Each of these would create an explosion as devastating than the Mt. Saint Helens volcano eruption...which changed climates for a while. If tens of thousands of these weapons were detonated, the world climate would certainly change.
Evidence to suggest this? We have ~10,000 nuclear warheads. Russia has as many. The other superpower also have numbers in the thousands. Each of these would create an explosion as devastating than the Mt. Saint Helens volcano eruption...which changed climates for a while. If tens of thousands of these weapons were detonated, the world climate would certainly change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also early nukes were fission which are "dirty" and newer ones are fusion which are comparatively "clean". The main goal of nukes is destruction, not radiation. The more heat and the larger pressure wave that they can create while producing the least radioactive byproducts is the goal(of modern nukes).... barring neutron bombs which release deadly short-lived radiation high enough that the pressure wave does not reach the structures on the ground.
PS - They wouldn't bomb Kashmir as they both claim that as their own. They would bomb government or civilian areas in their opponents country. Hopefully we wont ever find out....
Also early nukes were fission which are "dirty" and newer ones are fusion which are comparatively "clean". The main goal of nukes is destruction, not radiation. The more heat and the larger pressure wave that they can create while producing the least radioactive byproducts is the goal(of modern nukes).... barring neutron bombs which release deadly short-lived radiation high enough that the pressure wave does not reach the structures on the ground.</strong><hr></blockquote>
basically a fusion bomb is a a double concentric bomb, the external is a fission one, the inside is a fusion one, when the the fission one explode it compress the nuclear hydrogen part of the bomb (the fusion one), making it explode.
The nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the explosive force equivalent to 12 kilotons of TNT. Most nuclear weapons in existence today have a destructive capacity of greater than 1 megaton of TNT, with the US and Russia reportedly possessing warheads equivalent to 60 megatons of TNT.
Now, let's be conservative and multiply 1 megaton by 70 weapons (as was estimated by G4Dude to start this thread), and you have a destructive force that is approximately 6,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (based on my conservative estimate).
Now, these bombs would not be dropped only on Kashmir. Pakistan's recent missile tests have demonstrated that they are capable of launching a strike into the heart of India. India is likely capable of hitting Islamabad and other Pakistani urban centers. The potential casualties in the immediate region quickly increase to close to a Billion people.
It wouldn't stop there. China and Russia are both very close to Kashmir in specific and India/Pakistan in general. The radiation from a nuclear explosion could spread to these countries, resulting in retaliatory attacks from these nuclear powers. This scenario leads to US involvement. With this, we've quickly gone from G4Dude's initial 70 million estimate to a death toll of a billion in the immediate region and the end of the world in a broader scale.
What's the conclusion of all of this: Under no circumstances whatsoever is nuclear war good or justifiable. I am appalled that someone would even suggest such a solution.
Edit: There's a reason why deterrence is referred to as "Mutually Assured Destruction"
The weapons in the arsenals of India and Pakistan are not estimated to have more then a few tens of kilotons of destructive power each. For a reference see <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020528-18740032.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020528-18740032.htm</a>; And from what I've read, G4 Dude's estimate of the number of warheads is about right. So were talking maybe 2 megatons total (70 warheads times 30 Kt each). Note the casualty estimates in the above article.
Also, most U.S. and Soviet/Russian warheads weren't a megaton in size because the law of diminishing returns applies to nuclear weapons as well. If I'm going to destroy an airfield, for example, a 100 Kt weapon will work just fine. There's no need to waste the resources on a 1 Mt monster.
I do agree that the theory of a nuclear winter is reasonable. For example, we know that a volcanic disruption can cause significant climatic disruptions by throwing lots of ash into the atmosphere. A horde of nukes could also do this, but it would depend on how many and whether or not they're air or ground bursts. But India and Pakistan lack the number of warheads to cause this.
And finally, I question Pakistan's ability to hit India's capital Delhi. The recent long-rang missile test is for a missile that Pakistan is still working on. It takes a lot of effort to minaturize a nuclear warhead and I don't think they're there yet. Their best bet is to probably try and sneak a nuclear-armed F-16 past Indian air defenses. IMHO.
Fact is, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India wouldn't be the end of the world, nor even the end of those countries. They simply lack the means to do "more" than kill a few million of each other's citizens and cause local humanitarian disasters. HIV is doing far worse in South Africa. The world-wide fallout would be noticable, but hardly a catastrophe - there were dozens and dozens of above-ground nukes set off in tests the 50s and early 60s, and they certainly didn't do any permanent damage.
In fact, that may be the most dangerous part of this entire crisis. There's still a visceral fear of nuclear weapons, left over from the Cold War, when the use of a few nukes may well have been the harbinger of the end of the world. If India and Pakistan go nuclear, and the world doesn't end, it will break that 60-year taboo. More nations may decide it's worth the risk to acquire the weapons, and the threshold for using them will lower - maybe MUCH lower. That's the real danger, and that's the best reason why every effort should be made to avert nuclear war on the subcontinent.
i don't really know how you can say something like this . . . what would constitute a catastrophe?
One of the largest cities, New Delhi, in one of the most densly populated countries in the world.... that sounds like a catastrophe.
and it would definitly escalate!
China is right there, and Russia is close and many many muslim countries . . whose politicized populations would not sit idly by while India's massive army runs onto Pakistan and nukes fly.
The result of the Nukes would be far stronger than the bombs or the fallout themselves....(would it need to be to still be unthinkably bad?) infrastructures would collapse, untold millions would die, from starvation alone. Whole ancient cultures would dissapear, men, women, children, nature, culture, art, it would all be devastated. The ripple effects would grow far beyond teh the blasts, as far as the impact on the environment: not immediate only, but also through the human aftermath: reorganization of the means to survive by millions would shift the natural resources to new and as of yet not devastated recources, land that was not usable would have to do as usable land would not be workable anymore, rootless throngs roaming the land for bits of sustenance . . . it would be so bad we can not imagine from behind our lttle (or big) computer screens, where we sit in judgment, thinking we are important....
[quote]"but hardly a catastrophe "<hr></blockquote>
Way out of context, pfflam. What I said was that the global effects of the atmospheric fallout would hardly be a catastrophe - which is true. It would cause a few extra cancers, but the global effect of 40-50 small nuclear bombs would be dwarfed by the annual toll taken by, say, the fine particulate air pollution that comes out of your SUV's tailpipe.
It goes without daying that the effects on the cities those bombs detonate over would be horrifically catastrophic. But I still think you're overimaging the effects on India and Pakistan (especially India). A small number of low-yield weapons wouldn't render huge areas of the country permanently uninhabitable (as was pointed out, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are both thriving and densely populated cities at present). There would surely be a risk of social breakdown and anarchy, but the same things were predicted to happen with city-busting conventional bombing. Both Germany and Japan suffered far worse from conventional weapons than India would from 20 or 30 low-yield nukes, and both societes held together. Remember that what we're talking about happening would be much closer in scale to the firebombings of WWII than a Cold War holocaust.
And I really don't see neighboring nations getting involved. There's just no incentive. Russia suffered far worse fallout from its own nuclear testing than it would from a Indo-Pakistani nuclear war, and since the end of the cold war (and the need to balance US-tilting Pakistan) it doesn't have a horse in this race. China has long been a benefactor of Pakistan, but I'm sure it would be perfectly happy to see Pakistan take India down with it. If China is going to throw away the last 30 years of economic progress, it's going to be over Taiwan, not Kashmir.
As for the Muslim nations, I'm sure even more of their population will be riled up to strap C4 to their bellies and go blow up Israeli cafes. But what else can they do? No other Muslim nation has the capacity to even threaten India outside of the odd suicide bombing. And frankly, most militant Muslims would be happy to see Musharrif's government destroyed. They might be able to build a real Islamist state out of the anarchy.
What's the point? An Indo-Pakistani nuclear was would be horrible and catastrophic for those people, but the world won't end. The biggest danger is the politcal aftermath - China, for example, might be more willing to go nuclear over Taiwan if Pakistan and India have already taken the fall for breaking the world's post-1945 nuclear cherry. And something like that really COULD lead to the end of the world. Or maybe what I'm getting at is that life wouldn't change a bit for us Americans if India and Pakistan go at it, but it might change the global political climate in such a way that makes it more likely that something ReallyBad(tm) will happen to us later.
hmm, good points, towel. I just think that the figurative fallout from a nuclear exchange, and a largescale war, for that matter, would be a bad enough to call it a catastrophe.
But yeah perhaps things wouldn't excalate.... let's just hope we don't have to find out.
Depends what you mean by intervention and the scenario (nuclear or conventional, limited raid or full-scale war) you imagine.
Military intervention, which you're most likely inquiring about, is the least likely to happen in my opinion. I only see two nations as being able to effectively intervene - China and the United States. Russia simply lacks the power projection capability. China, by virtue of a common border with India, could open a second front with India in the event of a Pakistan-India war. The United States, of course, has massive and demonstrated power projection capabilities.
But why intervene militarily? In the event of a nuclear conflict, the last thing you want to do is intervene militarily and make yourself a target.
And on which side do you intervene? U.S. policy currently walks a tight rope between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is a valued ally in the war on terror and India is the worldest largest democracy and an increasingly important trade partner. And China only supports Pakistan as a counterweight to India and for commercial purposes, not as the result of some historical friendship or common cultural ties.
And how are you going to intervene? Are we going to take out Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons facilities? Shoot down inbound nuclear bombers?
Provide intel and warning about nuclear strikes?
So in review, my opinion on military intervention is that only two nations (U.S. and China) have a real capability to intervene, but there are potentially enormous penalties for doing so and lots of hard questions to be answered.
Do everything you can diplomatically, especially if you think it things could go nuclear, but recognize the limits to both American and Chinese power. In summary, the possibility of either the U.S. or China militarily intervening in a Pakistan-India war is remote at best.
Other Islamic countries perhaps would not intervene directly . . . but as we saw with Afghanistan and teh Mujahadeen in the 80s there would be an immediate expansion of the people available to fight. And who knows what Indonesia would to . .. what about the Tamil Tigers etc.
Besides there is a real possibility that India could end up loosing the ground war . . . and what would happen if they started to loose . . I can't help bu think that that would drag the US in in some capacity..... and there are alwys unintended consequences. . . and minor opportunities that might open up for land grabs by various other non-benign countries . . . . it might open up much awfullness . . . .most likely even if its just India and Pakistan
It is sad that the US is providing the leverage for the Pakistani fighters to do what they are doing. Since we have troops and other government agents all over Pakistan, it makes it very difficult for India to do anything but act tuff. If we were not there India would have won yet another war between the two countries.
I can't find a tradewind map for the Mideast, do they generally blow North,South,East or West. Would India or Pakistan get most of the Immediate fallout?
Escalation is always a possibility in war but the outcomes you mention seem unlikely. First of all India would clearly win any serious land war with Pakistan. Everyone, including the Pakistanis, acknowledges this.
Secondly, the Islamic world didn't intervene in any of the previous Pakistan-India conflicts and there's no reason to expect them to do so now. And none of them have any power projection capability anyway. About all you could expect would be a few thousand volunteers to come to Pakistan's aid. And these volunteers are hardly enough to affect the balance of power. Terrorism is the extent of their reach. Besides, the extremist Islamic types are against the government of Pakistan, not in favor of it.
And land grabs? By who? Certainly not Pakistan because they'll be beaten down rather quickly by India. Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, or Nepal, hardly. China - not unless it wants to risk a nuclear war to grab remote, resource poor, and largely unoccupied territory in the north of India while seriously damaging its prospects on the international stage.
A conflict between Pakistan and India will be confined to those two. No one else has the means and the motivation to get involved.
[quote]And who knows what Indonesia would to . .. what about the Tamil Tigers etc.<hr></blockquote>
For further correctness sake, the Tigers aren't even Muslim. The Tamils are mostly Hindu (the Sinhalese are Buddhist), and the Tigers are a secular organization.
The Tamil siting was merely to point out hot spots in the area that may just be looking for excuses to heat things up . . .. when india stops looking around itself things in the corners might get dirty . . . I could've made a long list of other areas but I don't feel like going through a 'hot spots' search and list making situation . . what I should say is this: to every action there are many possible uninteded reactions!
and with something as big as a war (which looks more and more like it won't happen --yeay) there are many many possible unintended consequences. that's all.
I stopped by Pittsburgh on my way back from a wedding in Ohio the other day. I must say, Pitt isn't the grimy industrial town it is made out to be (or maybe I need to get out of Washington D.C. more often). I toured the Andy Warhol Museum, walked around the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company headquarters building, drove around Carengie Mellon, and had lunch on Squirrel Hill. It all seemed pretty cool, although the downtown area was fairly quite for a weekend.
Not that this has anything to do with Pakistan and India, but I thought I'd mention it.
--yeah Imoved to Pitt just a year ago . . . when I first saw it I was literally shocked out how nice it was compared to what I expected: hills, nice old houses, not too many destitute neighborhoods (those are more in the small outlying towns that used to be hooked up to the steel industry; like Braddock with Carnegie's first steel plant) Carnegie Mellon is a nice U too, and squirrel hill is a cool diverse hood.....
Comments
<strong>- Problem 3: Global warming
Contrary to what you have been told, human actions don't cause much global impact on the earth (either atomsphere or land).
So... Global warming, NOT because of the humans, it's just the earth adjusting its temperature.
Global cooling due human's nuclear weapons fallout, impossible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Evidence to suggest this? We have ~10,000 nuclear warheads. Russia has as many. The other superpower also have numbers in the thousands. Each of these would create an explosion as devastating than the Mt. Saint Helens volcano eruption...which changed climates for a while. If tens of thousands of these weapons were detonated, the world climate would certainly change.
<strong>
Evidence to suggest this? We have ~10,000 nuclear warheads. Russia has as many. The other superpower also have numbers in the thousands. Each of these would create an explosion as devastating than the Mt. Saint Helens volcano eruption...which changed climates for a while. If tens of thousands of these weapons were detonated, the world climate would certainly change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This, I'm afraid, is true.
Also early nukes were fission which are "dirty" and newer ones are fusion which are comparatively "clean". The main goal of nukes is destruction, not radiation. The more heat and the larger pressure wave that they can create while producing the least radioactive byproducts is the goal(of modern nukes).... barring neutron bombs which release deadly short-lived radiation high enough that the pressure wave does not reach the structures on the ground.
PS - They wouldn't bomb Kashmir as they both claim that as their own. They would bomb government or civilian areas in their opponents country. Hopefully we wont ever find out....
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: havanas ]</p>
<strong>gobble gobble knows whats he's talking about...
Also early nukes were fission which are "dirty" and newer ones are fusion which are comparatively "clean". The main goal of nukes is destruction, not radiation. The more heat and the larger pressure wave that they can create while producing the least radioactive byproducts is the goal(of modern nukes).... barring neutron bombs which release deadly short-lived radiation high enough that the pressure wave does not reach the structures on the ground.</strong><hr></blockquote>
basically a fusion bomb is a a double concentric bomb, the external is a fission one, the inside is a fusion one, when the the fission one explode it compress the nuclear hydrogen part of the bomb (the fusion one), making it explode.
<strong>Just for some comparison:
The nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the explosive force equivalent to 12 kilotons of TNT. Most nuclear weapons in existence today have a destructive capacity of greater than 1 megaton of TNT, with the US and Russia reportedly possessing warheads equivalent to 60 megatons of TNT.
Now, let's be conservative and multiply 1 megaton by 70 weapons (as was estimated by G4Dude to start this thread), and you have a destructive force that is approximately 6,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (based on my conservative estimate).
Now, these bombs would not be dropped only on Kashmir. Pakistan's recent missile tests have demonstrated that they are capable of launching a strike into the heart of India. India is likely capable of hitting Islamabad and other Pakistani urban centers. The potential casualties in the immediate region quickly increase to close to a Billion people.
It wouldn't stop there. China and Russia are both very close to Kashmir in specific and India/Pakistan in general. The radiation from a nuclear explosion could spread to these countries, resulting in retaliatory attacks from these nuclear powers. This scenario leads to US involvement. With this, we've quickly gone from G4Dude's initial 70 million estimate to a death toll of a billion in the immediate region and the end of the world in a broader scale.
What's the conclusion of all of this: Under no circumstances whatsoever is nuclear war good or justifiable. I am appalled that someone would even suggest such a solution.
Edit: There's a reason why deterrence is referred to as "Mutually Assured Destruction"
[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agent302,
The weapons in the arsenals of India and Pakistan are not estimated to have more then a few tens of kilotons of destructive power each. For a reference see <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020528-18740032.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020528-18740032.htm</a>; And from what I've read, G4 Dude's estimate of the number of warheads is about right. So were talking maybe 2 megatons total (70 warheads times 30 Kt each). Note the casualty estimates in the above article.
Also, most U.S. and Soviet/Russian warheads weren't a megaton in size because the law of diminishing returns applies to nuclear weapons as well. If I'm going to destroy an airfield, for example, a 100 Kt weapon will work just fine. There's no need to waste the resources on a 1 Mt monster.
I do agree that the theory of a nuclear winter is reasonable. For example, we know that a volcanic disruption can cause significant climatic disruptions by throwing lots of ash into the atmosphere. A horde of nukes could also do this, but it would depend on how many and whether or not they're air or ground bursts. But India and Pakistan lack the number of warheads to cause this.
And finally, I question Pakistan's ability to hit India's capital Delhi. The recent long-rang missile test is for a missile that Pakistan is still working on. It takes a lot of effort to minaturize a nuclear warhead and I don't think they're there yet. Their best bet is to probably try and sneak a nuclear-armed F-16 past Indian air defenses. IMHO.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
Fact is, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India wouldn't be the end of the world, nor even the end of those countries. They simply lack the means to do "more" than kill a few million of each other's citizens and cause local humanitarian disasters. HIV is doing far worse in South Africa. The world-wide fallout would be noticable, but hardly a catastrophe - there were dozens and dozens of above-ground nukes set off in tests the 50s and early 60s, and they certainly didn't do any permanent damage.
In fact, that may be the most dangerous part of this entire crisis. There's still a visceral fear of nuclear weapons, left over from the Cold War, when the use of a few nukes may well have been the harbinger of the end of the world. If India and Pakistan go nuclear, and the world doesn't end, it will break that 60-year taboo. More nations may decide it's worth the risk to acquire the weapons, and the threshold for using them will lower - maybe MUCH lower. That's the real danger, and that's the best reason why every effort should be made to avert nuclear war on the subcontinent.
"but hardly a catastrophe " <hr></blockquote>
i don't really know how you can say something like this . . . what would constitute a catastrophe?
One of the largest cities, New Delhi, in one of the most densly populated countries in the world.... that sounds like a catastrophe.
and it would definitly escalate!
China is right there, and Russia is close and many many muslim countries . . whose politicized populations would not sit idly by while India's massive army runs onto Pakistan and nukes fly.
The result of the Nukes would be far stronger than the bombs or the fallout themselves....(would it need to be to still be unthinkably bad?) infrastructures would collapse, untold millions would die, from starvation alone. Whole ancient cultures would dissapear, men, women, children, nature, culture, art, it would all be devastated. The ripple effects would grow far beyond teh the blasts, as far as the impact on the environment: not immediate only, but also through the human aftermath: reorganization of the means to survive by millions would shift the natural resources to new and as of yet not devastated recources, land that was not usable would have to do as usable land would not be workable anymore, rootless throngs roaming the land for bits of sustenance . . . it would be so bad we can not imagine from behind our lttle (or big) computer screens, where we sit in judgment, thinking we are important....
Way out of context, pfflam. What I said was that the global effects of the atmospheric fallout would hardly be a catastrophe - which is true. It would cause a few extra cancers, but the global effect of 40-50 small nuclear bombs would be dwarfed by the annual toll taken by, say, the fine particulate air pollution that comes out of your SUV's tailpipe.
It goes without daying that the effects on the cities those bombs detonate over would be horrifically catastrophic. But I still think you're overimaging the effects on India and Pakistan (especially India). A small number of low-yield weapons wouldn't render huge areas of the country permanently uninhabitable (as was pointed out, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are both thriving and densely populated cities at present). There would surely be a risk of social breakdown and anarchy, but the same things were predicted to happen with city-busting conventional bombing. Both Germany and Japan suffered far worse from conventional weapons than India would from 20 or 30 low-yield nukes, and both societes held together. Remember that what we're talking about happening would be much closer in scale to the firebombings of WWII than a Cold War holocaust.
And I really don't see neighboring nations getting involved. There's just no incentive. Russia suffered far worse fallout from its own nuclear testing than it would from a Indo-Pakistani nuclear war, and since the end of the cold war (and the need to balance US-tilting Pakistan) it doesn't have a horse in this race. China has long been a benefactor of Pakistan, but I'm sure it would be perfectly happy to see Pakistan take India down with it. If China is going to throw away the last 30 years of economic progress, it's going to be over Taiwan, not Kashmir.
As for the Muslim nations, I'm sure even more of their population will be riled up to strap C4 to their bellies and go blow up Israeli cafes. But what else can they do? No other Muslim nation has the capacity to even threaten India outside of the odd suicide bombing. And frankly, most militant Muslims would be happy to see Musharrif's government destroyed. They might be able to build a real Islamist state out of the anarchy.
What's the point? An Indo-Pakistani nuclear was would be horrible and catastrophic for those people, but the world won't end. The biggest danger is the politcal aftermath - China, for example, might be more willing to go nuclear over Taiwan if Pakistan and India have already taken the fall for breaking the world's post-1945 nuclear cherry. And something like that really COULD lead to the end of the world. Or maybe what I'm getting at is that life wouldn't change a bit for us Americans if India and Pakistan go at it, but it might change the global political climate in such a way that makes it more likely that something ReallyBad(tm) will happen to us later.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
But yeah perhaps things wouldn't excalate.... let's just hope we don't have to find out.
<strong>But yeah perhaps things wouldn't excalate.... let's just hope we don't have to find out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Infinity times .00000001 is still infinity. So, no matter how small the chance of escalation is, it's worth attempting to prevent.
Who would intervene (besides muslim countries) if India and Pakistan went to war and India invaded Pakistan?
China? What would they have to gain/lose?
Russia? Wouldn't India be doing them a favor?
Or would they feel India is becoming too powerful in that part of the world?
Military intervention, which you're most likely inquiring about, is the least likely to happen in my opinion. I only see two nations as being able to effectively intervene - China and the United States. Russia simply lacks the power projection capability. China, by virtue of a common border with India, could open a second front with India in the event of a Pakistan-India war. The United States, of course, has massive and demonstrated power projection capabilities.
But why intervene militarily? In the event of a nuclear conflict, the last thing you want to do is intervene militarily and make yourself a target.
And on which side do you intervene? U.S. policy currently walks a tight rope between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is a valued ally in the war on terror and India is the worldest largest democracy and an increasingly important trade partner. And China only supports Pakistan as a counterweight to India and for commercial purposes, not as the result of some historical friendship or common cultural ties.
And how are you going to intervene? Are we going to take out Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons facilities? Shoot down inbound nuclear bombers?
Provide intel and warning about nuclear strikes?
So in review, my opinion on military intervention is that only two nations (U.S. and China) have a real capability to intervene, but there are potentially enormous penalties for doing so and lots of hard questions to be answered.
Do everything you can diplomatically, especially if you think it things could go nuclear, but recognize the limits to both American and Chinese power. In summary, the possibility of either the U.S. or China militarily intervening in a Pakistan-India war is remote at best.
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
Besides there is a real possibility that India could end up loosing the ground war . . . and what would happen if they started to loose . . I can't help bu think that that would drag the US in in some capacity..... and there are alwys unintended consequences. . . and minor opportunities that might open up for land grabs by various other non-benign countries . . . . it might open up much awfullness . . . .most likely even if its just India and Pakistan
It is sad that the US is providing the leverage for the Pakistani fighters to do what they are doing. Since we have troops and other government agents all over Pakistan, it makes it very difficult for India to do anything but act tuff. If we were not there India would have won yet another war between the two countries.
I can't find a tradewind map for the Mideast, do they generally blow North,South,East or West. Would India or Pakistan get most of the Immediate fallout?
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
Escalation is always a possibility in war but the outcomes you mention seem unlikely. First of all India would clearly win any serious land war with Pakistan. Everyone, including the Pakistanis, acknowledges this.
Secondly, the Islamic world didn't intervene in any of the previous Pakistan-India conflicts and there's no reason to expect them to do so now. And none of them have any power projection capability anyway. About all you could expect would be a few thousand volunteers to come to Pakistan's aid. And these volunteers are hardly enough to affect the balance of power. Terrorism is the extent of their reach. Besides, the extremist Islamic types are against the government of Pakistan, not in favor of it.
And land grabs? By who? Certainly not Pakistan because they'll be beaten down rather quickly by India. Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, or Nepal, hardly. China - not unless it wants to risk a nuclear war to grab remote, resource poor, and largely unoccupied territory in the north of India while seriously damaging its prospects on the international stage.
A conflict between Pakistan and India will be confined to those two. No one else has the means and the motivation to get involved.
<strong>And who knows what Indonesia would to . .. what about the Tamil Tigers etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for correctness sake, the Tamil are in Sri Lanka (where they are fighting the Sinhalese), and in Southern India.
For further correctness sake, the Tigers aren't even Muslim. The Tamils are mostly Hindu (the Sinhalese are Buddhist), and the Tigers are a secular organization.
and with something as big as a war (which looks more and more like it won't happen --yeay) there are many many possible unintended consequences. that's all.
I stopped by Pittsburgh on my way back from a wedding in Ohio the other day. I must say, Pitt isn't the grimy industrial town it is made out to be (or maybe I need to get out of Washington D.C. more often). I toured the Andy Warhol Museum, walked around the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company headquarters building, drove around Carengie Mellon, and had lunch on Squirrel Hill. It all seemed pretty cool, although the downtown area was fairly quite for a weekend.
Not that this has anything to do with Pakistan and India, but I thought I'd mention it.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
ok, now back to nukes and opinions