Well, since people are doing a good job covering this from the macro side, I’ll take it a bit more personally.
I think a lot of people would start sleeping more poorly. I was an anxiety case about nuclear doomsday scenarios in my early teens; I’ll bet that would start up all over again for some people.
And I’d become the kind of peace activist that even I find annoying.
I found these links at Fark the past week and they seem relevant to this discussion.
Click here for an article from NewScientist.com that gave some numbers of what might happen.
Also, click here for a series of wargames that were role played at various American military colleges.
Here’s some tidbits from the latter link:
also:
Kinda offtopic but if you want to see what kind of damage a nuke will do to any city in the US, click here.
Doghouse says, “Pakistan is no longer of any use as an ally in the Afghanistan …”
I am biased toward Pakistan. In Somalia the US was in a jam and Pakistan got our guys out. They didn’t want to do it. It had nothing to do with them, and they saved our butt.
I feel the same way toward Canada, who saved a few from the US embassy in Iran.
The US is like a clumsy giant who shows up at your wedding and falls on the cake. A couple of people will help the damn fool and bring a towel. The giant isn’t too bright, be he remembers his friends.
[sub]Forgive me, I can’t help myself[/sub]
This is the true story… of seven world leaders… picked to live in a house… to find out what happens… when people stop being polite… and start getting real.
The Real World!
On today’s episode, Chirac helps Blair confront his parents about his sexuality and Putin struggles with alcoholism during a wild night on the town in which an extasy-addled Bush must bail Jiang out of jail for indecent exposure. Also, the household is torn apart by a thermonuclear blast when Musharraf catches Vaypayee tampering with his toothbrush.
Just so we’re clear, and I apologize if my phrasing is/was clumsy, or non- OED. The phrase “real world” used in the context of the OP means “concrete” manifestations (ie things we know will happen with a very high degree of probability) as opposed to more speculative projections. “Real world” used in this context is common (and possibly imprecise) US (and British I think) lingo speak when discussing or requesting information about said “concrete mainfestations”, and I can understand that other nationalities might possibly see it as some sort of ontological diss of their “reality”. This is not the intent.
The phrase “real world” in this context is not mean to lessen or diminish the “reality” of a nuclear bomb exploding in your back yard. In the OP I’m simply asking for a list or discussion of highly probable, concrete things that will likely happen in the rest of the world after the event occurs. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.
jsleek: It could be argued that Pakistan’s government would hardly deserve such a betrayal–though the current government was installed after a bloodless coup that occurred after the Somalia incident. But keep in mind that preemptory action to take out Pakistan’s nukes and allowing India to pursue its goals through conventional means would save the lives of literally millions of peoples, a large proportion of them Pakistanis.
Conjecture.
At any rate, though I tend to lean strongly in India’s direction, I’m not convinced that India’s motives are purely noble. There has always been, unfortunately, a strong element of aggressive nationalism in India’s approach to the Kashmir problem ( and of course the same goes and then some for Pakistan ).
Further I strongly disagree that Pakistan is now superfluous to the United States’ campaign in Afghanistan, including the issue of nation-building there. A U.S. intervention before the fact would almost surely give tremendous street cred to Islamists and endanger Musharraf’s government. You may very well create the doomday scenario you are trying to avoid.
Here are a couple of links on battlefield scenarios for a modern Indo-Pakistani war that I’ve posted before ( sadly that thread was lost during the “Time of Troubles” ). They are a few years old and don’t posit the current state of massive build-up ( which in my opinion make battlefield stasis even more likely ), but they are interesting none the less.
Pakistani first-strike: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bjordan/INDvsPAK-2.html
Indian first-strike: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bjordan/INDvsPAK.htm
IMO the U.S. needs to take an active role in diplomacy, but should maintain a strict neutrality militarily, unless something drastic happens ( and perhaps not even then, depending on the situation ).
We may already be past that point, and Pakistan might not only be superfluous but positive threat to our mission. Doomsday? Well on its way.
According to USA Today, the present round of tensions between Pakistan and India are directly attributable to Al Qaeda, with the goal of forcing Islamabad to remove troops hunting al Qaeda terrorists in western Pakistan and send them to fight India, and to undermine the government of Pakistan’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The New York Times also reports extensive Al Qaeda infiltration in Pakistan.
And as for the US taking preemptive action to take out Pakistan’s nukes, today’s OpinionJournal/Best of the Web Today notes:
Admit Tamerlane, and everyone else, I’ve been on the right track all along, dating back to last October. We’re way past the point of conjecture, and my position is strongly supported by the evidence that is now emerging.
Well, DR, I missed that thread, but if you’ve ever heard of www.stratfor.com (the stratfor is short for Strategic Forecasting), they speculated that the exact same scenario that you posted was the most likely outcome in that area.
I’ve rarely read anything that sent actual chills up my spine; that article on that website did.
It’s long gone from there now, but I copied it out and have it saved on my hard drive. I suppose I can’t repost the entire thing because it’s copyrighted material, but I’ll quote a few, um, strategic words:
In another article they speculated that the U.S. would cooperate with India in a strike against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. These ideas are out there; they constitute the worst case scenario that is being thought about even now as we debate this.
Maybe. Maybe not. I see nothing definite here, myself. Last I checked Musharaff was still officially a U.S. ally and no fundamentalists have taken power.
As above. “Might be”, not “is”. I’d substitute “may eventually be”, myself.
Your humble opinion :). Not mine. My opinion is that I don’t know what’s going to happen, so I’m not going to make any unqualified statements.
Quite possible.
Don’t doubt this either. It’s a prudent precaution. Though whether any such action will occur remains to be seen.
I will admit nothing of the sort :). Your scenario of India and the United States allying to crush Pakistan and bring it to heel has yet to occur. I still consider it unlikely. Not impossible mind you, but unlikely. If and when it occurs, I will concede you were prescient ;).
Sorry, but no. We are still at the point of active conjecture and will be until this issue resolves itself, one way or another.
I still think the most likely scenarios, are, in order:
1.) Diplomatic solution, probably an uneasy one. Pressure is intense on all sides to reach one.
2.) Escalating border clashes continue, until a regular conventional war breaks out. Doesn’t last long, results are inconclusive ( but with Pakistan getting the worst of it ), diplomatic pressure ends it quickly. Little is resolved.
3.) Conventional war that drags on for many months. Same ultimate resolution as number #2, but with more destruction.
4.) Conventional war and someone ( almost certainly India ) makes a major breakthrough and compels a cessation of the war in their interest.
5.) Conventional war and someone makes a major breakthrough and/or someone flips out and a limited nuclear exchange occurs. Massive destruction and quick end to the war as threats poor in from the U.S. and Europe and both sides step back in horror.
6.) Limited nuclear exchange threatened by Pakistan and the U.S. decides to pull the plug by blowing the nukes. ( Note if India starts the missle-slinging, elite team or no, the U.S. is up shit-creek ).
6b.) Fundamentalist coup - U.S. blows Pakistani nukes, then pulls out.
7.) Fundamentalist coup removes Musharaff and your scenario is triggered.
8.) Nuclear exchange threatened, your scenario is triggered, while Musharaff is still in power.
And down the line. I can also think of all sorts of other scenarios, including non-fundamentalist coups of various temperments occurring in Pakistan with varying results. The above list could be easily expanded to a 100 options and a thousand permutations, with many ties. But regardless, I still think your “India and U.S.( by proxy ) occupy Pakistan” scenario to be one of the less likely.
Opinions, only opinions. I have been wrong once or twice ;).
I don’t think I ever predicted India would occupy Pakistan–just that it would take strong action to remove a potentially hostile regime next door and probably grab the rest of Kashmir (except for the Chinese-occupied bit) while the opportunity presented itself.
Needless to say, I hope that your predictions are correct, that a more peaceful (or at least less belligerent) solution is attained. But after seeing the WTC fall and the US successfully invade Afghanistan, I don’t know what lies outside the realm of probability any more. I do have a bad feeling regarding this business of Al Qaeda being active in Pakistan.