India and Pakistan..First War between Nuke Powers? What will happen?

[Deathtoallwhoopposeme]

This thing doesn't look good. If the looming conflict spirals out of control into a Nuke exchange, what will the consequences of that action be? Will we end up getting in? How will it affect Americans, as well as others in that region? Any thoughts?

[Dylan]

Things are looking pretty grim for Pakistan/India. Now India is recommending that all US/Europe/Oz citizens should leave the country for safety reasons :eek: .

[strat0124]

Its a sad state of affairs, but who are we to point fingers? We've used the bomb! I find it odd we sent our Sec of Defense to negotiate peace (supposedly) between the two. We'll do whatever we have to do (and have) to protect the pipeline in Afghanistan. No wonder Dubya is comin down hard on Mushareff or however you spell his name.

[Wewus432]

OK here's a question. How do you nuke a country right next to your own without contaminating your own country with radiation? It's not possible is it? Or you nuke India and contaminate China? I don't think so. There may be conventional war there, the nukes are still a last straw effort. Possible scenario, one of those countries sees their nuclear capabilitiy compromised they may launch, but it's a lose,lose, proposition at any rate.

[Tusker]

In addition to the danger of war and it's fallout, there's also the danger of excessive pressure. If India and Pakistan are perceived to have backed out of this potentially tragic war because we bullied them, we can end up alienating whole new groups of countries and people groups. Lots of ways to lose...... :rolleyes: Jerry

[KenElevenShadows]

My friend in Kashmir (see the other thread that I started last week for one of the emails) says that everyone in Kashmir is terrified of war, conventional or nuclear. Either way, it's going to be horrible for Kashmiris, Indians, Pakistanis, everyone. Lose/lose/lose situation. This stuff is really sad, but it's even sadder when one has good friends there who are affected in bad ways by this conflict every day. We shouldn't 'point fingers', but we should advise. We've used nuclear bombs (well, okay, atomic bombs), and we know what happens when we use it now. It should never be used again. Hopefully, since we are not talking about two rogue states, but two established countries, they will see the wisdom in not using nuclear weaponry.

[thisDude]

The problem is that India is now arming ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. A Pakistani radar tech is not going to be able to tell from the screen if its a nuke or not, so in that respect Pakistan will probably launch the first nuke in (percieved) retaliation. Now lets assume that they engage in a conventional ground war. The losing side in the war will launch the first nuke to save face. They can't be left to fight this war because after its said and done, millions will be dead and even worse, it won't be taboo to use the nuke anymore. It will also destabalize the region... Watch China for a move on Tawian.

[alphajerk]

im not sure of the range of nuclear fallout but not only did america drop an atomic bomb on japan, but we tested many here on our own soil [and various islands in the pacific].... shit happens. hey, maybe india will take care of what america failed to do with a nuclear strike. kill osama.

[soapbox]

The only thought worse than a "War between Nuke Powers" is a "[i]First[/i] War between Nuke Powers!" [i]Let peace break out all over the world ...[/i]

[KenElevenShadows]

This is partially in response to a couple of you have emailed me, wondering what the Kashmiri people were like. I traveled to Kashmir for six weeks in 1997. This is pretty much what the title says, so if you're not interested, just skip it! I just posted this in the "Email from my Friend in Kashmir" thread also. ---- My Observations About the Kashmiri People: India and Pakistan have been fighting over Kashmir since their independence from Britain in 1947, and Kashmir has literally been ripped in two. A third of Kashmir is in Pakistan; the other two-thirds is in India. Since I've been to Indian Kashmir,the so-called Most Dangerous Place On Earth according to Presidents Clinton and Bush, I've been asked several times what the Kashmiri people are like. What did they think of, say, the United States? Readers might be interested to note that the Kashmiris that I met (which in almost six weeks was quite a lot! ) looked upon the United States not with hatred or animosity, but with curiosity. They watched a lot of movies from our country, and wanted to know what life was like there. When one travels, one is, like it or not, an ambassador to one's own country, representing it for good and bad, and so I tried to paint a realistic picture, dispeling myths, confirming facts, and trying to be open as possible. The people who ran the houseboats already had a pretty good idea of what the U.S was like, since a lot of tourists had come through Dal Lake prior to the tensions and military crackdown in 1990. Still, though, they were amazed at how expensive things wer in the U.S. A common question was how much a house cost, how much rent, food, clothes were, And sometimes, it was a wee bit difficult to explain that although we made a lot of money (relative to them), we also spent a lot because things are in relation to our cost of living. So, in other words, "Yes, our citizens often do have a lot more money than others, but not quite as much as you think!!" Some of the Kashmiris really wanted to come over to the United States, just to see it with their own eyes, although many are really happy where they are, despite the tensions and violence. With a lot of people who live in India, including the Kashmiris, the United States has almost this aura about it for them -- "a good country", they think. Some think that Americans may be a little immoral, especially in regard to their sexuality, but the ones I met in Kashmir didn't have any hatred towards the U.S. because of that. They just thought it was different. Many are in awe of Neil Armstrong because he walked on the moon, and the moon holds special significance for Muslims. There are rumors going around that Neil Armstrong converted to Islam shortly after he came back from the moon. To the best of my knowledge, this has not occurred. I think, too, that Kashmiris are very very proud of where they live. It's beautiful, and they know it and take great pride in it. Kashmir is idyllic. It has lots of lakes, apple orchards, tall snow-capped mountains, flowery plains, waterfalls, trees, rivers, ski resorts, forests, and greenery. One Kashmiri farmer asked me, "Is it true that in America, they use cow dung as fertilizer?" Much of the ground in Kashmir is so rich that it can grow big red tomatoes the size of softballs with absolutely no fertilizer. Farmers just plop seeds in the ground around Dal Lake, watch them grow, and then simply harvest the crops from shikharas (small paddleboats)!! Amazing!! Great apples, too. Beautifiul orchards. Kashmiris are saddened by the war and the harsh occupation by the Indian Army, which has in part dirtied the lakes nearby Srinagar, pushed villagers around, demanding that they be fed. During my stay on the Ajanta Palace houseboat, the neighboring houseboat was boarded by the Indian Army. The owners of the houseboat was asked to put up the Army and feed them for free for a day. I also saw several Kashmiris being beaten over the head with sticks by the Army to shoo them out of the road to make way for a military envoy. When the Indian Army saw that I was looking at them, they looked surprised that a tourist was in the small village, and immediately stopped beating the villagers. India's government has now issued POTO, which basically means that the Indian military may conduct search and seizures in Kashmir without warning, warrants, or provocation. This unfortunately is not rumor, and has been substantiated by the international press. I was in Kashmir in 1997 during the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of India's independence from Britain. Needless to say, Kashmir wasn't taking part in the celebrations. All was quiet that day. Based on the people that I met, if there is any animosity towards anyone in particular, it's directed towards terrorists or the Indian Army. This picture I am painting of Kashmiris is not through rose-colored glasses. There were some pushy people, sometimes rather annoying. Not very many. The pushy people were most often the salesmen, peddling their wares from the shikharas to people staying on the houseboats. Still, though, generally nice. There are, of course, Kashmiri separatists and terrorists -- not necessarily one and the same. I didn't meet any of these people because I like to stay out of trouble. When wandering around the marketplaces in Srinagar, many of the women avoided eye contact, quickly averting their eyes. Sometimes, I would notice that the women would be staring at me through the mesh in their chardors (burqas), and then look away. Most of the women that I saw did NOT wear full chardors, usually headscarves. When I got to know the women, such as the ones in the family who ran the houseboat, I quickly realized that they pretty much completely ran the household, probably not a big surprise. They were often quite chatty and joked a lot Although quiet with me at first, after getting used to me, they started joking with me a lot, too, asking me questions and so forth. We started getting a lot of really funny inside jokes running, the kind that you only get after you've hung out with people for a while. There was one time in which one of the daughters was giving her father a neckrub because the guy was tired, doing manual labor all day. We played a trick on him -- I quietly took her place and started giving him the neckrub. I did this for a couple of minutes while the daughter and a couple of the other women looked on, trying really hard not to burst into laughter. When he finally figured out it was me, he joked, "I was wondering why the neckrub suddenly got so much better!!!" :)

[Wewus432]

Ken: Thanks for that personal look at the Kashmiri people. You always see more of a place when you get to know the residents instead of just being a tourist looking on. Love to hear more.

[Synthguy]

I think we need to beseech a Higher Power than alphajerk. ;) Seriously, if you think human beings are equipped to deal with the bizarre problems this world is hurdling into, with human cloning, increasing natural disasters, asteroids getting closer with each pass, and stuff like this, I don't think you grasp the scope and magnitude of the situation. Plus the stubbornness of people from other lands stuck in a Middle Ages mindset (ref: 9/11). There is a God, and there is a Devil, and if prophecy is any indication, the world will choose the Devil. Hey, it'll be cool for a while, then... :p

[soapbox]

[b]Ken[/b], I second [b]TheWewus[/b]' thanks. I felt transported for a few minutes!

[henryrobinett]

Yes Ken, thank you for the in-person touch. I don't think this will turn into a nuke war. I think both sides are far too intelligent to do anything so stupid. I hope I'm right.

[Synthguy]

Ehh..... gee, I hope so. The main problem I see in dealing with these sorts of cultures is the problem of "saving face" and that old eastern machismo. When they draw the saber half way, it's usually a sign of utter weakness and cowardice to put it back, so someone had better get everyone together for a big barbecue and see if they can resolve this so everyone comes out smelling like smoky ribs and roses. India has let it be known publically that 12 million casualties in a nuclear spat is chump change as far as they're concerned. Thank God I live in America where humans are still a little more important than a snail darter. For the most part... ;)

[KenElevenShadows]

First of all, thanks for the warm comments regarding my previous post. My friends there are worried sick about the ongoing tension, and I just hope they are okay. It is definitely more personal when you have friends there, when you have stayed there and seen that they are more than people you see in the newspaper or National Geographic halfway around the world -- they are people too, who have the same fears and desires and humor and whatnot. I hope that sanity guides this. That and the realization that nuking someone who is your neighbor is practically nuking yourself. Half a century ago, it would have been nuking yourself. If I think of more things that might interest you about the Kashmiris, I'll probably post it. In the mean time, if you want to see pictures about the people that I have been writing about, go to http://www.elevenshadows.com/travels/kashmir1.htm and then keep going through the next five pages. This page here is the overview of this 1997 trip: http://www.elevenshadows.com/travels/ladakh.htm The text for the pictures was written in 1997, and I will probably update it relatively soon to reflect some of the ongoing things occurring there, just to keep it current.

[Curve Dominant]

From all current accounts, India and Pakistan seem to be sliding inexorably into the abyss of nuclear war. Both countries are threatening more boldly by the day of an imminent conventional war, and simultaneously in denial as to the possibility of the conflict going nuclear. And their senior leaders are not talking: India has withdrawn its ambassador to Pakistan and expelled Pakistan's envoy to Delhi. This is a recipe for disaster. There seems to be no resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Both sides are playing a "zero-sum" game over Kashmir, over which they have been in conflict since 1947. Indian and Pakistani forces are exchanging fierce artillery fire in Kashmir - they have been for weeks now, and are likely to be doing so as I type this. With neither side willing to back down, the conflict can only escalate. Someone mentioned hoping "sanity guides this." Not likely at all. These two countries have a historically deep and intimate mistrust and animosity towards each other going back to 1947, when India and Pakistan were carved out of the British Indian empire. The religious overtones of this conflict are but one, albeit important aspect. They are neighbors with a bloody history, and not much else. War between these two nations seems inevitable, and in "the fog of war," ration and reason are among the most immediate casualties. Each side, when faced with unexpected setbacks, will feel immense pressure to excercise the nuclear option before the other does. In that case, retaliation is guaranteed. The most dangerous aspect of this brewing conflict is that both sides seem bafflingly naive about the possibility that a limited conventional war will escalate into a nuclear exchange. Each feels they can "manage" the other with limited warfare. In reality, this is never the case. Miscalculations are inevitable - this is what the war historian Karl Von Klauswitz termed "friction," and both sides are susceptable to it, not just one. And it is at the heart of these small misjudgements at the beginnings of a limited conventional war that will begat a catastrophic ending. My "idealist" side hopes for the best, but my "realist" side expects the worst.

[EJolson]

There is a very interesting (and troubling) article on this subject at debka.com at the moment. What grabbed me was the authors' contention that despite the 11th hour flurry of diplomatic activity and international pressure towards peace, in fact most world powers do not have a particular self-interest in keeping India and Pakistan out of a war. "In a word, not a single key government seems to own a stake in preventing the two nuclear powers from stepping off the edge into the abyss." Here are the relevant portions of the article: [quote] The Vajpayee government sees its chance of wielding its military preponderance – 1.2 million troops against a Pakistani army half that size, and an air force and navy standing in the same quantitative ratio to Pakistan's – to seize large parts of Pakistan for one or more of gains: 1. To take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability; 2. To enfeeble the Musharref military government and render its army a long-term non-threat to Kashmir; 3. To topple the central government in Islamabad. The Musharref government likewise feels its has been offered a great opportunity to cut India down to size at last. With the help of the superior nuclear weapons, missiles technology and guidance systems supplied by China, the Pakistani army believes it has a chance for the first time in half a century to beat Indian might and bring New Delhi's pretensions as Asia's number one power to naught. Islamabad believes that by going to war it will force the big powers, United States, Russia,China and Iran, to treat Pakistan's interests with more respect. As to these powers, despite the frantic diplomatic comings and goings, none has tried too hard to avert the hostilities until the eleventh hour, each for its own reasons. The United States: The Bush administration's dominant objectives in its ongoing war on terror can be summed up at present as being, first, to pre-empt a terrorist nuclear strike against the United States and, second, to strip of their nuclear weapons regimes capable of letting them pass into the hands of terrorists or elements hostile to America. These were not the goals President George W. Bush started out with after the September 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington, but as the counter-terror war unfolded, the nuclear threat loomed ever larger until it took center-stage. This concern governs Bush's dogged determination to go to war on Baghdad – the next most likely date is the coming fall – and divest Saddam Hussein of his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons at all costs. Judging by the way international crises are going at present, DEBKAfile's military experts do not rule out the possibility of the fall months of September and October 2002 seeing three full-scale wars raging at one and the same time, between India and Pakistan, the US and Iraq and Israel and the Palestinians. To ward off an additional complication, Bush applied all his powers of persuasion to making Russian president Vladimir Putin cut back on technological and military aid for completing the development of Iran's nuclear weapons capability. This was the main topic at issue between the two presidents when they met in the third week of May. Putin promised to see what he could do, but nothing has so far been known to happen. Pakistan's nuclear weaponry is a worry to Washington, as much as the Iranian and Iraqi nuclear capabilities. Though saying little, the US administration has been haunted by the thought of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Muslim extremists like al Qaeda. It would therefore welcome the elimination of Islamabad's nuclear option, even if this came about as a result of a full-scale Indo-Pakistani war. While both nations acquired nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan's arsenal is not thought to contain more than 30-50 nuclear warheads of 20-25 kilotons each, while India has at least three times that number. Whereas Pakistan's delivery systems are limited to missiles, India's air force MiG, Jaguar and Mirage planes can deliver nuclear bombs. Both sides are capable of inflicting millions of deaths. But for full strategic effect, Pakistan must exhaust its entire arsenal, while India can hold a portion back in reserve. Russia: Most of the Indian army's weapons systems are made in Russia. Its battle tank is the Russian T-90. A full-scale war would be an economic bonanza for Moscow's military and heavy industries, which would be called upon to produce massive re-supplies of arms and ammunition. This would provide Putin with a juicy carrot to offer Russian industrial leaders to soothe their anger for canceling Russia's profitable military transactions with Iran. An Indian victory would also strengthen Russia's standing in Central Asia and South Asia. China: If Pakistan, armed with Chinese weapons systems, air force, missiles and nuclear technology, prevails, it will give China's geopolitical situation a boost. Beijing's policy objective of stepping up Chinese influence in the Muslim world, especially in Iraq,Iran and Libya, as a means of delimiting US-Russian expansion in Asia, will gain added impetus. Even if Pakistan fought India to a tie, given the asymmetry of their forces, Musharref could still claim a victory, one that would reflect favorably on China's standing as a regional and world power. In a word, not a single key government seems to own a stake in preventing the two nuclear powers from stepping off the edge into the abyss. That leaves only the two protagonists, Atal Behari Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharref. It is up to them to make the crucial decision about whether to sit down and talks things through seconds before they plunge their countries into immeasurable tragedy. [/quote]Yikes...

[KenElevenShadows]

Curve Dominant wrote: "Someone mentioned hoping "sanity guides this." Not likely at all." Actually, I wrote that!! Pakistan and India are many things, but fortunately, they are not stupid. Sanity will not stop incursions, militant activity, or sadly, convenetional war. I'm hoping that sanity puts the brakes on before we get to nuclear war. Some stuff from today's LA Times, quoting Musharraf as saying, "Any sane individual" cannot contemplate a nuclear war, and elsewhere saying that he feels neither India or Pakistan is "irresponsible enough" to start any such thing. Fighting to "liberate Kashmir" from the Indians is a huge source of Pakistani pride, and Musharaff is treading on ice if he sides too much with the U.S., giving the appearance of being the American's puppet. He risks his leadership, and is caught in a precarious position. In an all-out conventional war, Pakistan doesn't have a chance against India's much larger and much better-armed forces, but regardless, things could get ugly. It's not so much the nuclear war that I think would happen -- I too think that it's unlikely; it's an ugly, prolonged conventional war. This, unfortunately, is more than likely. I've started to realize that this whole mess has bothered me more than I thought it did. I have very good friends, almost like family, in Kashmir, and very good friends, almost like family, in New Delhi. This is the same family that has a general and colonel in the Indian Army that I mentioned in a previous thread (the general was stationed in the Jammu-Kashmir region for a number of years).

[Botch.]

[quote]Originally posted by EJolson: [b] In a word, not a single key government seems to own a stake in preventing the two nuclear powers from stepping off the edge into the abyss. That leaves only the two protagonists, Atal Behari Vajpayee and General Pervez Musharref. It is up to them to make the crucial decision about whether to sit down and talks things through seconds before they plunge their countries into immeasurable tragedy. [/quote]Yikes...[/b][/QUOTE] One very critical party was left out of this excellent article: the al Qaeda themselves. They have the most to gain from an Indo-Pakistani war; Pakistan will be forced to move most of its military away from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, relieving pressure on the al Qaeda. The bomb's in place, it just needs someone to light the fuze, and I'm sure Osama's machine is looking very hard for a way to strike the match... :(

[Wewus432]

At this point I see a very strong argument for Kashmiri independence. Why should they remain the jewel in India's crown when they are geographically, culturally, and religiously SO different. If I was voting I would vote for INDEPENDENCE FOR KASHMIR! India and Pakistan should back off and give these people the RIGHT to decide their own destiny as they were both EVENTUALLY given.

[Tusker]

The trouble is that India has several hundred languages and thousands of unique people-groups. They fear that if they start giving independance ... things will snowball. In a sense the decision to split British India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan) over the issue of religion represents one such division. It was a bloody, tragic period with thousands dead and homeless which still haunts the troublesome relationship between these countries. Amidst all the bloodshed... there are some touching scenes chronicled in the book Freedom at Midnight... the story of India's independance. In one scene there is a long line of Muslim refugees walking north to Pakistan and a long line of Hindus walking on the other side of the road south to India. At times, a person will stop to talk to someone in the other line and give them the address of the home they just vacated .... in hopes the other person will have a house upon arrival in a strange town. Many Indians think that it would have been better to keep it all one and try to resolve the problems of identity through a democratic process (Gandhi and Nehru were pushing for this). The Muslims were sure they would be subjugated and successfully pushed for independance. There are cogent arguments for both points of view. Today there is the occasional minor nationalistic movement in other provinces like Tamil Nadu which the center tries to contain gently. The India we know has existed for less than 50 years and is trying to contain divisions and social identities dating back to 10,000 BC. Tough job. Avoiding balkanization is going to be a problem for many countries, but perhaps particularly for India. Regards, Jerry

[Wewus432]

Good point Tusker, very complex situation. I was very moved by Ken/Eleven Shadows post and hope they can work things out for the best, not for me or you to say, I guess.

[KenElevenShadows]

Good points from everyone. Supposedly, Al Qaeda is moving in to the Pakistani side of Kashmir (remember that Kashmir is divided in half between Pakistan and India). This is according to the Indian government. I too would like to see Kashmir independent. One proposal put forth in "Kashmir in the Crossfire" (book, can't remember the author's name) is to have the U.N. come in, stabilize the region, and help to set up a Kashmiri government, military, police, etc., but obviously, Pakistan, India, and Kashmir would have something to say about that. India is very afraid of having its country split up. A little over ten years ago, there was a huge movement in the Punjab region for independence. The Punjab region is India's breadbasket. A lot of wheat and other crops are grown there. It's also largely Sikh. Like someone pointed out, India has many, many different cultures, religions, etc., and the Sikhs are one of them. They were interested in independence, and India went through quite a lot of unrest through the late '80s. Right now, Ladakh is not struggling to be independent, but they want more autonomy. Ladakh is lumped in with the Jammu-Kashmir region, whose seat of power is in Kashmir, and are not very aware of the very different kinds of situations and cultural aspects of Ladakh's predominantly Tibetan Buddhist culture. Ladakhis are afraid of their neighbors, Tibet, which is occupied by the Chinese. They are afraid that the Chinese will eventually punch through and start taking more territory, and that they will be defenseless against them. China and India have a hotly disputed border as well (the so-called Line of Control). As you can see, India certainly has its hands full! Thank you for everyone's concern and understanding and empathy for the Kashmiris and others involved. It's something that has been bothering me, although I haven't really acknowledged it to myself until fairly recently. I am really concerned for my friends' future and well-being. They are usually upbeat people, even in the face of adversity. They joke around a lot, and are very positive usually. To get emails like the one I posted in the other thread was devastating to me because I know that something is terribly wrong, much worse than before.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows: [b] Some stuff from today's LA Times, quoting Musharraf as saying, "Any sane individual" cannot contemplate a nuclear war, and elsewhere saying that he feels neither India or Pakistan is "irresponsible enough" to start any such thing. [/b][/quote]Musharraf is a politician (even worse, a military politician). He gives one speech in English for the world and another one in Urdu where he beats his chest and says things like "We will stop at nothing to defend our country." I appreciate his assistance on Afghanistan, but the guy is as shrewd and opportunistic as anyone in power today. Unfortunately, he's treading a thin line between the horrors of war (rational) and the desires of his hard line constituency (irrational). Kashmir is a disputed territory just like Northern Ireland, Israel, and Taiwan. Some people there would rather be in Pakistan and some would rather be part of India (as it stands today). There are never easy answers under such circumstances, because it's way too easy to play each side against the other, a classic pissing match. Regardless of how this particular chapter of history turns out, you've got to be concerned about who ELSE might end up with Pakistan's nuclear weapons technology in the next decade or two. Iraq? Hamas? Al Quaeda?

[midispaceho]

We live on a very big planet. Devestating as nukes are, I am not too worried about fallout contamination. Perhaps it is because living in Las Vegas I am literally in the back yard of the largest nuclear testing ground anywhere. The feds detonated dozens and dozens of those things including some of the largest mukes ever made here. The problem with the Pak vs India situation is that al-Qaeda has a strong interest in making war here to destabilize the region and allow them to go about their evil plans easier. If the war is only conventional, the Paks are going to get fully whooped...making them tempted to push the button. With all these nukes around, it seems a regional nuclear conflict is almost inevitable at some point. Personally, I don't think this war will happen, however once the rogue nations get nukes (which the will) all hell could break loose.

[KenElevenShadows]

Good points about the technology falling into others' hands. Russian nukes, too. BTW, I've heard a bit about the Yucca Mountain thing in Las Vegas. Nevada is possibly the only state in the U.S. that does NOT use nuclear power plants, but is still the fed's dumping ground. Heard about the mushroom cloud license plates, too.