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.
By the way, that'll be the day I stop paying income taxes. That and "reparations".
Nope, wouldn't be prudent.
As for nuke war, terribly enought I personally think we are about to see a nuclear exchange between these two, and it will be horrible beyond beleif. Pray I'm wrong.
Yes its a huge number and would be very very serious, but then the militant advance of Islam, doesn't seem any less serious to me.
IMHO...I wouldn't exactly use the term " worried". Concerned, yes, I am. Concerned for the innocent lives that will be lost, however, I firmly believe that God is still in control and nothing is happening in this world that He is not "allowing" to happen. For whatever reason, I don't know, only He does, in His Master plan. I suggest people get themselves right with the Lord and pray like they never prayed before !!
Time for lots of prayer.
Semper Fi!
You can also split hairs in that the weapons used in 1945 were atomic weapons, while those likely to be used around September or sooner are hydrogen bomb-based nuclear devices.
-archy-/-
Agreed. It would however be the first bilateral use of nuclear weapons between warring nations. There are three scenarios that I imagine might result from the present situation and I'm having a difficult time figuring out which is worse;
1. First launch nation gains a decisive advantage and greatly diminishes the other nations ability to launch a counter strike. This would set a precedent in all similar situations that may happen in the future and cold war "finger on the button" thinking will be obsolete. Any time there is an escalation of tension, countries will run to be the first to launch.
2. Both nations are able to successfully launch the majority of their weapons and inflict massive casualties on each other. Although more devastating than the first scenario, this may serve as a better learning tool for second and third tier countries interested in building a nuclear program.
3. Fear of mutual destruction results in either a stalemate, limited military action or a full scale conventional war. This will be all the justification emerging nations need to advocate building nuclear programs as a deterrent.
Does anyone have any feedback on these two nations arming missiles with conventional warheads? From what I understand neither is sophisticated enough to make the distinction between whether a launched missile is or is not a nuke.
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.