▲ 49 points
back
38 comments
India and Pakistan are not going to have a conventional war, let alone Nuclear war. They will have this special ops/ militant proxy fights. Things have escalated because of election season in India, once the election is over, the tempers will lower.
Billions could die is a good headline, to get attention. Without taking lightly of serious situation, the appetite for a full war is not there in neither countries, all they want is some bragging rights. Politicians are willing to serve some of it.
>Things have escalated because of election season in India, once the election is over, the tempers will lower.
Things have escalated because of the worst single incident since 1989, in which a radical terrorist suicide bombed 40 people in one go.
I really doubt things would be calm if it weren't election season.
I agree with you in that the will for this kind of thing mostly isn't there, but the problem with nuclear arms is and has always been a failure of C&C structures and miscommunication during a crisis leading to an unintentional first strike. Manufactured or no, I think we can say that the skirmishes between India and Pakistan are a crisis that has the potential to lead to actors in either country fucking up. BTW, this isn't unique to India or Pakistan, it was the primary concern for most of the cold war as well.
i must disagree that the appetite is not there. consider this indian TV station: https://www.republicworld.com/livetv
you will note that on the marquee at the top, one of the statements reads "DECISIVE BATTLE IS NEED OF HOUR."
on twitter, both indians and pakistanis appear to be calling for escalation of the war while believing that their side is the one that is winning the skirmishes. the people i've been following on both sides appear to think that their militaries will prevail. of course, their statements cannot be mutually true in reality. but the public opinion apparatus appears to be oriented towards pushing an immediate escalation of the war, and there may be significant grassroots support for escalation independently of that.
on the other hand, pakistani airforce removed the fuzes from bombs which they dropped on several indian positions, so it was more like a "we could have gotten you, if we wanted to" action. and the indian air force appears to be bombing empty ground from the get-go, which serves the same signalling purpose. furthermore, for all the artillery shelling the two sides have been doing, it seems like casualties and damage are nearly nonexistent at present.
i doubt that billions will die. but this isn't a minor flap anymore -- it's the precipice of a larger and more destructive conflict. such a conflict could still be limited, however, such as in the kargil war.
> This is no accident: as Khan said, Pakistani leaders intentionally leave their nuclear threshold ambiguous.
It's interesting to me that this strategy persists. While outwardly cunning, the danger of an unarticulated threshold is total annihilation. A double edged strategy, to say the least.
There is not going to be any war. Elections season, patriotic drive.
Even if all 140 nuclear warheads of Pakistan are deployed their impact will barely destroy a district in India. Same applies for Indian warheads. It is dangerous but nowhere near what media exgaggerate. Try nukemap site and see coverage area.
Disclaimer: National Interest is a neocon soapbox.
From 2017, i wonder if the comments about the nuclear arsenal are out of date now.
Nuclear weapons take time and money to develop. I doubt much has changed in the last two years.
well, duh
Ok, I know this is a low effort comment. But, this is a low effort article. Nuclear war bad! Next up: Water wet!
No country should be allowed to have mass-destructive weapons unless it has enough resources to compensate the damage that it can bring with it. More over the countries that possess mass-destructive weapons should pay insurance to its potential victims. I think it is the right way to disarm entire world.
How do you propose to make someone with a nuclear weapon do something they don't want to do?
It is the same problem as with human rights but multiplied by billions. If the world’s majority will accept this proposal, then it could make the minority to accept it too as it is fair enough. Technically it could be smarter sanctions and militarizing the borders of violator
Weapons are the reason there is peace in the world after WW2. Countries with no lethal weapons like Syria are facing war as of now while North korea doesn't.
Firstly, this peace has no guarantees, secondly, the potential destruction is only increasing with the time. Do you think that every country will have nukes in the future? Do you think it is the smartest of all possibilities?
Nuclear weapons could make irreversible changes on the Earth. It is much dangerous than any war.
Any country that launches nukes will likely be retaliated against with nukes from another country, one allied with the original target maybe.
After that, they may not have "enough resources to compensate the damage"
That is why I propose to pay insurance so that resources will be outside
What is the insurance premium on causing untold death and destruction due to nuclear hellfire?
It is zero by now. I propose to make it as high as possible
I look forward to reality where the US pays Mexico just for being its neighbour.
US may have enough resources to pay compensation “above zero” if it will be crazy enough to use nukes against Mexico. So it is the question of risk of applying of nukes and stated premium amount whether US should pay anything or not (btw insurance should be paid to safe places such as union of nations who will be able to give this money to victims)
The idea is to make a law against poor unpredicted countries with nukes (such as Pakistan or North Korea) so that they don’t use nukes as argument in the politics to make profits as it could end up badly.
Didn't your original message say "neighbors"?
Nuclear politics are a lot more complex than this.