Assuming at some point in the near future Pakistan and and India throw a couple of nukes at each other, other than the localized death and destruction, what are the real world / real politik implications for the world and specifically for the United States?
Is it a nuclear free for all? Do the countries recoil in horror at what they have done or, based on the US model of having nuclear bombed Japan, do you pretty much just pick up the pieces and get on with life?
If India and Pakistan really do nuke each other, I think that all of the rest of the world will have to pay. The fallout will drift all over the place, and the U.S. will probably have to send over a few billion dollars in cleanup/health supplies to help the survivors.
Trust me - nuclear between any two countries on earth is definitely our business.
Also, remember that a lot of the satellites in the early warning detection systems for both the USA and Russia detect any nuclear launches and could automatically set off some missiles. Sort of a worst case scenario, which would engulf the entire world. (depends on how old the satellites are)
On the other hand, if none of that happened, Everyone would pull out of Afganistan, China would strengthen its forces in Tibet (bordering that area) and probably do whatever it wanted in teh region in the ensuing chaos. (supressing monks and so on, maybe help the rebels in Nepal, I don’t know, just guessing)
But everyone else would be trying their best to make sure that the war would be just confined to those countries.
my WAG’s, and not forgetting that maybe Pakistan would call on other muslim countries to help… (but I doubt it over Kashmir, it is a power/political and not religious thing)
FloChi
If I weren’t such a peacenik, I would suggest this strategy:
Putin, Bush, Chirac and Blair (and Jiang if he’ll play ball) all get together and inform Musharraf and Vajpayee that, if either of them lob a nuke at the other, then an ICBM from each of the other world nuclear powers will wipe out both countries’ nuclear capabilities altogether.
Goddamnit, I’ve been listening to the crackpot schemes of conservatives on this board for too long… 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by FloChi *
Also, remember that a lot of the satellites in the early warning detection systems for both the USA and Russia detect any nuclear launches and could automatically set off some missiles.
[QUOTE]
You’ve been watching way too many movies there, bub. Or is there a cite you can use to back up this assertion?
Didn’t think so. Let’s not get hysterical, people.
I asked about the environmental effects a few days earlier here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=116603
I am from India, and I can tell you that chances of India initiating a nuclear war are slim. India and Pakistan fought a full-fledged war recently after Pakistan’s military incursion into Kashmir. It’s only that it was not declared or termed a war. Both the countries daily shell each other’s posts and there has been a low key war going on for years now; I am talking of military confrontation and not of military action against Islamic jehadi infiltrators in Kashmir.
In the event of a full-scale war, India’s conventional forces are superior to that of Pakistan. Pakistan would use the nuclear option in the face of a complete defeat.
The Kashmir problem has been on for 2 decades now and has not been resolved after numerous attempts, both peaceful and military. War, many feel, should be fought and this problem resolved once and for all. But fearing a nuclear war the leaders, for now, are just posturing and hopefully we will not have to fight a war.
A directly affected population 2-3 times the combined size of the EU and the US and he wants to know what the “real world” effects. God give me strength.
pan
So, things that happen in India and Pakistan aren’t “Real World” ? What Britney Spears wore to the Grammy’s on the other hand would be perfectly “Real World” and relevant to the international community.
Blame CNN - I did!
The OP’s body makes it pretty clear he meant “effects outside the two countries directly involved.”
FloChi, nuclear missiles are not lauched automatically by satellites. We don’t have WOPR running the show with Matthew Broderick hacking in via modem.
I think the biggest problem with a nuclear exchange would not be the fallout, which would mostly fall in India and Pakistan - they’re big countries - but would be the humanitarian disaster. India and Pakistan simply would not have the resources to control and recover from the atomic destruction of a couple of their cities, and you can double that if the cities hit are Islamabad and New Delhi. You’d have massive unrest and possibly the collapse of their governments, and the world would have no choice but to step in to save the innocent. The repercussions, violence, misery and civil strife could last for decades.
I’d been thinking along the same line, but I wouldn’t nuke both countries, just the one who launches the first strike. Bush Doctrine Part II: You start a nuclear war, and the United States will finish it.
I know, I know, crackpot conservative…
The likely number of strikes in an all out nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is not a doomsday scenario. Among the current Nuke club, more atmospheric detonations were set off just to learn how to make the damn things. Yes, fallout, and no, not confined just to India and Pakistan. But the end of the world is not a likely outcome.
However, the intervention of other powers is a very dangerous situation. You know American politicians are damned unlikely to be entirely unbiased in their intervention, and neither are the other nuclear powers. Expecting unanimity in this matter is a pipe dream. A very strong non nuclear strike on both nations nuclear weapons infrastructure, conducted by both Russia, and NATO would be a workable scenario, but the chance of bringing it off looks pretty slim, to me.
" The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative." ~ Sun-tzu ~
Considering most of the posts here are originating in the West, the opinions offered almost all have a decidedly Western-centric view. Having said that, the fallout (pun intended) would be environmental, political and economic. What remains to be seen is the level of nuclear exchange between both countries (and the resulting aftermath), as well as how restrained the rest of world remains from joining the fight.
Assuming a limited (undefined) nuclear exchange, one should expect the obvious between both countries. One can safely assume that smaller nearby trading partners with these two countries would be devasted as well. World markets would take a severe jolt, including the NYSE, London, etc. The West has considerable ties with India (as opposed to Pakistan) so the repercussions would be felt far and wide, for a considerable time. Whatever assistance and rehabilitation to the surviving peoples and the environment would be limited by the destruction of the infrastructure (roads, rail, communication links) as well as radiation effects and after-effects.
Political instability would probably be numb for a bit (both sides would have effectively killed off their opposition). One should expect the usual hotheads in the world (Saddam, etc.) to blame the West for the entire issue. Whether Saddam, et.al., use the war as an excuse for their own means remains to be seen. Environmentally you can forget your trip climbing Mt. Everest for the forseeable future.
Assuming a larger nuclear exchange (still undefined) all said above but more so. The real problems arise as to whether other countries will stay out of it, but this is more of before the fact and not after. There is no love lost between China and India (even China has moved troops to its own border with Kashmir), and Pakistan’s Musharraf travelled to China a few weeks back to secure support from China. China will obviously weigh its options carefully but it in the Pakistani camp. India is already in the Western camp. It may be difficult having cooler heads prevail when the prevailing winds would be carrying death pass by (into) your own country.
There is always the chance that some nuclear weapons will not be targeted against their respective enemies but to other places. Pakistan is militarily weaker than India in all respects. There was circumstancial evidence uncovered in the US war on terrorism that some Pakistani nuclear scientists have pro-terrorism ties, no to mention continuing terrorism infiltration within the Pakistani government/military. It is conceiveable that with its back to the wall and Pakistan launches an all-out nuclear counter-strike (it no longer has anything to lose), some of those missles could be programmed to take out select areas of the Arabian Pennisula and render much of the Middle East oil production moot, via outright blast effects and heavy radioactive fallout. Such a scenario would have extreme consequences for the rest of the world. (Don’t forget that Japan is heavily dependent upon Middle East oil compared to the USA.)
All all-out nuclear exchange involving more than just the combatants is unlikely. However, the worldwide repercussions will still be profound.
One nuclear bomb fired in anger really can ruin your day.
Want the very un-politically correct answer? :
There would be a lot less Indians and Pakistanis in the world.
In all reality, I don’t think India would initiate nuclear war. India is a fairly liberal democracy (liberal in the good sense of the word, not the American political sense). Democracies, as a rule, do not wage unprovoked total wars.
Pakistan is a dictatorship. A muslim dictatorship. (Wow, an islamic nation without democracy, who would have guessed?) While Mussharaf(sp) may or may not be the one to push the button, I am sure that some rabid islamist is waiting in the wings over there, ready to lauch a coup, and seize a few nukes in the process. Not a pleasant thought.
Want the very un-politically correct answer? :
There would be a lot less Indians and Pakistanis in the world.
In all reality, I don’t think India would initiate nuclear war. India is a fairly liberal democracy (liberal in the good sense of the word, not the American political sense). Democracies, as a rule, do not wage unprovoked total wars.
Pakistan is a dictatorship. A muslim dictatorship. (Wow, an islamic nation without democracy, who would have guessed?) While Mussharaf(sp) may or may not be the one to push the button, I am sure that some rabid islamist is waiting in the wings over there, ready to lauch a coup, and seize a few nukes in the process. Not a pleasant thought.
I agree with some of the substance of your post, but not with a few particulars, like the chunk above. The idea that India is a long-time ( or even short-time ) ally of the West as opposed to Pakistan, is mistaken ( if you were just talking about cultural ties, you can ignore the following 
). In point of fact one of the salient points in India’s post-British history has been a strong streak of political independence. They are not always complete maveriks, but India has always fancied itself ( with some limited justification ) as a regional Great Power that does not need to kowtow to anyone, including the West. In the 60’s thru the 80’s this manifested itsel in a strong flirtation with the U.S.S.R. and fairly cool official relations with the U.S…
In contrast the weaker Pakistan has always had a need to acquire allies. China is a regional counterweight to India and a natural ally, especially given Afghanistan’s pre-Soviet intervention hostility to Pakistan ( the border conflicts there have been papered over for now, but they were serious then and are potentially so in the future ). But Pakistan’s most consistent patron was, and remains, the United States. To this day the U.S. retains more leverage over Musharraf than with the Indian government.
Again I think you have a false dichotomy here. Both and neither India and Pakistan are in the Western camp. Culturally India’s government may seem ( and to some extent is ) more similar to that of the West. But this does not necessarily translate into political alliance. Pakistan has closer ties to the U.S. than it does to China. The fact that it is leaning on China for support right now ( which I’m guessing it won’t get ), has to do with their proximity and shared antagonism towards India, which the U.S. lacks.
Yes, but generally not critically so. This is not the U.S. and Grenada. As I’ve argued elsewhere, I don’t believe India has the ability to completely overwhelm Pakistan in any short war. “Win” a border conflict, yes. Thay have a strong edge. But threaten Pakistan as an independant entity, no. Or at least unlikely. Evidence from the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani Wars support this view, I think.
Pro-Islamist ties. Which is sometimes, but not always, synonomous with terrorism. Otherwise I agree.
I have argued elsewhere that I find this an extremely unlikely scenario. It’s fantastic enough from an Indian point of view. It makes even less sense from a Pakistani point of view. What possible reason would even ( or particularly ) a radical Islamist government in Pakistan have for bombing their co-religionists and Holy Sites in Arabia? It’s not like they are going to have much success pinning it on anyone else and it would violate every moral precept they would supposedly stand for.
But I certainly agree here.
But muslims are just like you and me!!!
[Has a PC annuerism].
I think soft fluffy sweaters would now come in day-glo colours.
Hmm, did I or did I not speculate seven months ago that it might come to this?
I still think that the US is going to have to choose between its two “allies” in the region, and for a variety of reasons, it’s going to choose India–not least because of the poor controls that the Pakistanki government has over its own nuclear arsenal and the danger that those nukes could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists who still have a strong presence in that country. Furthermore, I think that siding with India would better align with the US’s long-range strategy of counterbalancing China.
Although “unleash” was admittedly a poor choice of words–tongue in cheek though it was–I can still see the US potentially communicating to New Delhi that they can go ahead and have at it. Furthermore, the best way to get India to promise not to use its own nukes might be for the US to take preemptive action to destroy or capture Pakistan’s nukes.
And as for moral qualms, Pakistan is no longer of any use as an ally in the Afghanistan theater and are positively endangering our troops through its erratic behavior. And woudn’t it be morally justified to betray an (erstwhile) ally if we can save 12 million lives?