QUESTION: Nuke War is it coming?(my title)

The Objective American ^ | Friday, May 31, 2002 | E.G. Ross

[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.

[My Identity]

The parties are kicking a lot of dirt on each other right now. Trying to provoke the other, or prove their manhood for their constituents back home. The Hindis are leaning forward, the Pakis seem to be doing doing their best (e.g., launchers, missles) to dare India to cross the line.

The leftist paradigm allows the weaker Pakis to attack India via provy without penalty, while India must show "restraint". India appears well past restraint at this stage. Add to that the muslim 'humiliation' issue, so that the Pakis feel obligated to respond to the Indian build-up. Pakistan (or the terrorists) engage in some provocation too far, India responds by attacking conventionally. Pakistan responds conventionally, but is soon overwhelmed in the air and at sea. Some Paki field commander, fearing the worst, resorts to tactical nukes (Paki C&C is reportedly very bad - Musharraf claims he has no control, doesn't know the location of Paki nukes. If they're in the field as reported, even if under "loyal" commanders, their security is significantly at risk). India responds in kind, heavily. Total flight time: 3-5 minutes. The World's Shortest and Deadliest War.

If the Pakis simply backed away from the border and put away their toys, world pressure on India to do likewise would be impossible to ignore. However, that would be 'humiliating' to the Pakis ( It's a Muslim Thing, You Wouldn't Understand^© ), so it doesn't seem likely. The US could put its troops in harm's way. That would stop the Hindis, but not the Paki terrorists. If India pulls back, the Paki fundamentalists would see that as a sign of victory and redouble their efforts. A "Mexican Standoff" of sorts.

Jihadis in Kashmir are the wildcard. No matter how many conversations occur between Washington, New Delhi and Islamabad, if the terrorists cannot be contained (Paki military middle-management seems reluctant) or blocked by India (unlikely), further attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir and elsewhere will occur. If sufficiently provocative, they could push New Delhi to act -- either low-intensity (targeting militant camps along the LoC) or high-intensity (targeting Paki nukes, command structures, etc).

Apparently the Pakis, a textbook failure of a society, immersed in grinding poverty, swimming in a soup of self-pity, self-righteousness, and self-hatred, infected with jihad fevers, sees martyrdom as an 'honorable' out. They'll welcome war -- and risk everything -- because they have nothing to lose. A societal death wish.

[archy]

If nukes do go off, I hope Peshwar is destroyed...

That's Peshawar. If you truly hope to see an entire region and its people obliterated, at least have the courtesy to spell their name correctly in their death sentence and obituary.

And, of course, if China joins in the dancing at the ball, we may follow them all within a few minutes' time.

-archy-/-

[Caipirabob]

but both Pakistan and Indian would probably recover in a few years.

Perhaps, but they would have a different name, like China.

[toupsie]

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.

From what I have read, India has already topped off several missiles with conventional munitions. This has US officials worried as they believe that Pakistan will not be able to tell what is being fired at them and will go nuke first. With the close borders of the two countries, neither has a lot of time to decide whether to "push the button".

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

You have many good things to say, but you neglect one element of the current situation: Al Qaeda stirring the pot in Kashmir. There's more to it than just India and Pakistan, unfortunately. And frankly, what Al Qaeda is doing is brilliant.

[Sender]

With the close borders of the two countries, neither has a lot of time to decide whether to "push the button".

This is an important point. If missiles start to fly, there will be no time to call New Delhi or call Islamabad to ask 'Whazzup?'. They'll have just enough time to launch a counterstrike before they find out what's incoming. Sure makes for an itchy trigger finger there, pardner.

[mhking]

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.

I feel like I'm nauseaus and on a REALLY BAD roller coaster on the lift hill. You know it's gonna be a wild ride, you know you're gonna be REALLY sick after, but the waiting is what's killer...

[mhking]

China will be producing three headed babies for the next 50 years.

Oh, that's sick...millions upon millions of three-headed babies...and no, please don't start with the 'dead baby' jokes...

[DreamWeaver]

if indeed there is a master plan, wouldn't our actions (praying, etc), already have been figured into this plan? What good would praying do other than make us personally feel good?

Praying has had results of Divine Intervention ( God) to a people/nation that was repentant. Yes, we can hold off evil with sincere prayers. By reading the Bible you will find many instances of this. BTW, yes, praying should make us feel good, but that is not the main purpose of prayer, it is our only way to connect with God.

We are in a war, a spiritual war more than physical.

[Allrightnow]

If a three headed child is making sneakers in a sweat shop, does he demand a higher rate of pay than Siamese twins?

[zefrog]

Why us for the clean-up? Why is it ever us? We're the ones with the most technology and wealth—and good will.

Barf alert.

[stuartcr]

I understand the concept of Divine intervention, but if the master plan of God is in place as you said, wouldn't God know if we were going to pray or not? If so, then how could it be called intervention, wouldn't it just be part of the already devised plan?

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I am no expert on the British Raj, but the British are not responsible for this horrible eventuality. While the British ruled India as the diamond in its Colonial Crown, the fighting between Muslims and Hindus, Pakistanis and Indians (if such a distinction can be made) was non-existent. Following the end of World War II, Great Britain came to the conclusion that it needed to relieve itself of this foreign colony, that is the reason Lord Louis Mountbatten was picked to be the last viceroy of India. He did a superb job. Great Britain supervised India as a giant colony, and when they left it over to the Indians to run as they wished, they left a functioning country behind. It was only after British Colonial Government left that the friction between Hindus and Muslims came to fruition. Remember, when India first became an independent nation in (whenever) I am pretty sure it was as one nation (India and Pakistan as one). It was only afterwards that a split took place.

Yes Colonialism is responsible for many of the problems in the former colonial world today, but British Colonialism was successful and with the exception of India v. Pakistan has left very few scars. If one wishes to trash colonial powers, trash the Belgians and the French, British Colonialism actually made their former colonies in pretty good standing once they left (since then, like in Zimbabwe the powers that be have wasted it). God Bless

[zefrog]

The difficulty does not lie in keeping a colony peaceful when this colony is under an authoritarian rule from the master country. On the contrary: in India, the British have played, like almost everywhere else, the divide-and-rule strategy, and have consequently exacerbated tensions between the different communities to turn this to their advantage (just like the French did in Maghreb, between Arabs and Berbers/Kabyls). When the British left and when their authority was gone, the tensions erupted and the mess exploded.

[wny]

This just in: Al Gore released a statement today saying nuclear war between Pakistan and India would be a terrible tradgedy and added the contibution to global warming by a nuclear exchange would wreak havoc on the environment. Mr. Gore went on the condemn the Bush Administration for abandoning the Kyoto Protocols.

[backhoe]

Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical Warfare- Survival Skills, Pt. II

The India-Pakistani Conflict... some background information-

[backhoe]

Also!

`Pak to test hydrogen bomb in a few months' [Free Republic]

[dd5339]

Has anyone seen any type of fallout projections or jet stream maps? Just curious where the fallout is going to end up if it does happen.

Semper Fi!

[backhoe]

Yes, indeed- or an reasonable extrapolation.... there are relevant links in the ones I provided, but here's what a Chinese 300 kiloton test shot produced:

[freeforall]

Yes, it does make me sick.On the other hand it would prove that America is more generous (with taxpayers money) than the rest of the world.Should America pay for the clean up? No way.