Posted on 05/31/2002 8:55:02 AM PDT by freeforall
I'm getting increasingly worried about the escalation of tension between India and Pakistan. Could we be on the verge of witnessing the world's first nuclear war? You've dealt with defense matters for many years. What would such a conflict look like in rough terms? —Shiverin' in Shreveport
It would look quite rough, indeed. I agree that nuclear war between India and Pakistan seems more likely every day. With the revelation Thursday that the White House is preparing to evacuate some 65,000 Americans from the area—a huge undertaking that we would attempt only in the most dire of circumstances—it appears that U.S. intelligence is far from sanguine about the situation. It's deteriorating fast. Reason is not prevailing. Despite European, U.S., and Russian efforts to get both sides to "cool it," the rhetoric is rising and the two are already engaged in intense conventional warfare. Artillery and mortar fire across the border is the heaviest in years. Between one and two thousand people have died in the last two weeks alone. At least two million troops are now facing off; more every week. Much commerce has been cut. Both nations have reportedly put their nuclear arsenals on a high state of readiness, dispersing warheads among commanders in order to assure themselves retaliatory capacity. Blustering and posturing are growing more shrill and irrational.
As to what it would look like if it happened… It would probably start with a dozen or more nuclear strikes by one side against the other in an attempt to preemptively deal a crippling blow. If the attacked nation survived with quite a few nukes intact, it would retaliate almost immediately. That would be followed by decreasing counter-retaliations and counter-counter-retaliations. If they exhausted their arsenals in the exchange, between 50 and 150 nuclear bombs could be detonated over scores of cities and other targets. The U.S. estimated last week that such a nuclear exchange would kill about 12 million people and injure another 8 million. This would not—scare stories to the contrary—be enough to wipe out the two nations or even completely destroy their economies. The damage would be horrendous, but both Pakistan and Indian would probably recover in a few years. As we learned from World War II and other conflicts since, major cities are surprisingly resilient.
As to who would win, well, because India's arsenal and population are much larger, let's put it this way: Pakistan would probably have the tougher time of it.
By the way, the U.S. would probably bear much of the cost, not only in lost trade, but also because the U.S. would be the country that would most likely have to clean up the radioactive aftermath. It could cost us billions, but it would not devastate our economy, although it could throw the world into another slowdown. Why us for the clean-up? Why is it ever us? We're the ones with the most technology and wealth—and good will. I'm told by sources that the U.S. has been quietly gearing up for this eventuality. Another bad sign that things may be spinning out of control over there.
What's the cause of the escalation? In TOA Daily's opinion, it's primarily due to the on-going terrorism—mainly by Pakistani-supported Muslim militants. They've been engaging in homicide bombings of Indian facilities for years and India has had enough. It wants an end to it, even if the price is high. It's demanded that Pakistan control its militants, but Pakistan either won't or can't. It could be that the militants have grown too strong and secretive, with too many resources, for Pakistan to control. The same thing happened with al-Qaeda, which Pakistan funded and helped build. Shows you that the pit of penalties for backing terrorism can be very deep. You could look at this situation—if it turns atomic—as the first nuclear exchange of the worldwide War on Terror. We thought we had it bad with the September 11, 2001 bombings. We did, but if Pakistan and India go at it with nukes, it's going to make 9/11 look like a firecracker in a mailbox.
Also note that both Pakistan and Bangladesh are Islamic nations. The only significant secessionist movements in India are in its non-Hindu fringes. Hindu India is united.
the violence was far less profound than at this point, of course some of that has to do with a big imperialist power occupying the country (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
Hindu-Muslim violence has had its ups and downs since Islam first came to the Subcontinent in, I believe, the 8th century. You're right, Hindus and Muslims worked together to get rid of the British, but as soon as it was obvious the British were preparing to exit (well before the actual exit), Hindu-Muslim animosity spilled into the open and triggered a series of events that led to the emergence of Pakistan.
And even before the British came, there was significant Hindu-Muslim conflict, for example, during the reign of Aurangzeb of the Mughal dynasty. Bottom line, the religious conflict started the day Islam entered the Subcontinent and continues to this day. What we're seeing is just a continuation of a very old war.
The world seems to be entering another "great turning" like it did before WWI & WWII... where it is leading, I cannot say, but I do sense it happening. FWIW!
I agree wholeheartedly. The worst colonial record, IMO, is that of the Spanish.
True, my evidence is anedoctal and piecemeal. On the other hand there is every reason to believe that a pro-war mentality extends deep into the ranks of ordinary citizens on both sides.
This is localized between India and Pakistan.I will grant you that our anti missile tehnology is greater than we have been told.See below for more.
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
The Semi-Optimistic Side of a Regional Nuclear War There was a lot of news over the holidays about the possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Unbenownst to most Americans, both countries during the Christmas season here in the West have been anything but joyous. They are cocking their nuclear weapons for possible conflict. Their dispute over several simmering matters is rapidly coming to a head. Both nations have exchanged heavy artillery fire in the Kashmir region for a week. They are massing tens of thousands of troops along their long, mutual borders. A war looks more likely than it has for decades, and this time it could easily go nuclear. India is actually bragging that it can survive a nuclear first-strike from Pakistan and devastate Pakistan with its nuclear retaliatory fire; almost daring Pakistan to use its nukes. (India has a no-first-strike nuclear policy.) Both nations have the missiles to fry large sections of each other's major cities. India has about 60 nuclear warheads, Pakistan around 40. That's enough to create a heck of a lot of damage, kill hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, and throw both nations into deep recession. But contrary to some shriller voices, it's not enough to cause serious planetary damage. There will be no nuclear winter and a regional nuclear exchange is unlikely to spread. Don't get me wrong; the world would feel the effects. Even a small nuclear war could crash stock markets temporarily and delay worldwide economic recovery for six months to a year. It wouldn't be pretty—but it would be limited, and the world would survive. Probably Pakistan and India would, too—although it would set them back a decade or more. I hope the two back away from the nuclear brink. (I've got loyal readers in both nations and I don't want them incinerated!) But if their governments don't back away, I also hope the world doesn't panic. Nuclear weapons have natures. Their damage is not endless. Pretty? Hardly. But an earth-killing catastrophe? Let's be realistic. That's catastrophic greenie junk science. If these two antagonists decide to trade a few nukes, it will be ugly, but not cataclysmic. And my guess is that—as with the US's nuking of Japan in World War 2—the ensuing horror would give the world another half-century of sobriety on the subject. I hope it doesn't come to that, but this seems to be a time of hard lessons. On the other hand, it also seems to be a time when nations take their hard lessons to heart. That's a semi-positive thought on an exceedingly dire subject. Keep an eye on it, but don't count the nuclear chickens before they hatch. President Bush and others are working to bring the situation to a calmer state. They may yet succeed. —EGR The Objective American Daily
Deepa Mehta directed this Indian-Canadian romantic drama, the second part of a trilogy. Based on Bapsi Sidhwa's autobiography, Cracking India, the story is set in 1947 in Lahore, where Hindu, Sikh, Parsee, and Muslim share a peaceful co-existence. Events are seen from the point of view of eight-year-old Lenny (Maia Sethna), a girl from an affluent Parsee family. Lenny's nanny, Shantya (Nandita Das), is involved with the Muslim Masseur (Rahul Khanna). When a train of Muslims arrives at the local depot and all the passengers are found murdered, the various sects turn against each other, and the city is soon aflame.You may not agree with the politics but it is worth seeing considering the current situation.
"The fruit of abortion is nuclear war"-Mother Teresa
Far as I recall ( searching back to things I read from 1962 on ) the prevailing winds, especially at high levels, are rather constant- and head our way!
The level of the burst affects the quantity of fallout, but since the fireball ( unless so deep that it stays underground ) reaches the stratosphere, hot stuff gets all the way to the jet streams and is carried by them.
While a nuclear exchange between these two would certainly not be desirable, here is something to put it in perspective:
To: Francis
Of the 2,044 nuclear weapons tests worldwide, there have been 711 in the atmosphere or underwater: 215 by the U.S., 207 by the Soviet Union, 21 by Britain, 45 by France and, 23 by China.
The last atmospheric nuclear weapons test occurred on 16 October 1980 in China. The first was on 16 July 1945 in the U.S.
It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons. That's equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours.
Stay Safe !
By the way, the U.S. would probably bear much of the cost, not only in lost trade, but also because the U.S. would be the country that would most likely have to clean up the radioactive aftermath. It could cost us billions, but it would not devastate our economy, although it could throw the world into another slowdown. Why us for the clean-up? Why is it ever us? We're the ones with the most technology and wealth-and good will. I'm told by sources that the U.S. has been quietly gearing up for this eventuality. Another bad sign that things may be spinning out of control over there.
Saudi Arabia is listed on that graph as having taken some refugees. I wonder if any were Palestinians? Any non-Muslims?
If Pakistan and India nuke each other, will Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia accept Muslim refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh? What about non-Muslims from India? Will the UN insist that these Islamic cultures embrace diversity and multiculturism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.