This almost makes a GD. Almost. Ah, well…
Anyway, I was just wondering…are there any estimates about who would win* if India and Pakistan finally decided to wage total war against each other? Any idea what kind of casualties one could expect?
(*I realize “win” is kind of a relative term for a war like that. Maybe it’d be better phrased as “which side wouldn’t be completely wiped out” or “which side would come out the least f’ed up.”)
I’m pretty sure that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, so we pretty much all lose.
Yeah, the smart money is on China winning, pretty much.
Beyond the nukes it’s India in a walk. Just a matter of bodies, GNP and gear I’ve got to figure India’s got Pakistan over a barrel.
It probably makes a better debate than a general question. So…
Moved.
samclem GQ moderator
You beat me to it, so just let me add ObL and his ilk. The conflict between those two countries is mostly (exlusively?) over Kashmir, and can be portrayed as a calssic Muslim vs non-Muslim clash. The chaos that would ensue would play wonderfully into the hands of Islamic extremists.
My initial reaction on reading the thread title was dude, cricket’s not that important, to merit a GD.
Hard to figure. The Pakistanis would loose in a long fight, but like many nations threatened by a huge neighbor, they have a pretty good military and doctrine. Then of course seem to screw up all calculations, but as both sides have them, they ought to even out.
The Pakistanis plan to fight until the UN makes the Indian stop. At the postwar settlement, they plan to trade Indian territory they have captured for a return to the
status quo ante bellum. That is to say, they have put their best units and equipment into a small number of formations which will attack into India while the Indians go the other way.
Of course, using nukes would be very, very bad. Worse than most people realize. Neither side has the overhead imagery it would take to pop a corps headquarters. This means each would be forced to aim at immobile cities. Further, such a war would lower the nuclear firebreak all over the world. If India and Pakistan can have a nuclear war, a dozen other nations will want to have the same capability.
That would be Real Bad.
The Pakistanis plan to fight until the UN makes the Indian stop. At the postwar settlement, they plan to trade Indian territory they have captured for a return to the
status quo ante bellum. That is to say, they have put their best units and equipment into a small number of formations which will attack into India while the Indians go the other way.
just out of curiosity (not skepticism) ?how did you find this out
Well, India and China have been whispering in the corner lately about respecting each other’s borders, opening trade, and presumably watching each other’s back. I doubt the already unwieldy China has any interest in administrating the much poorer and even more unwieldy India. Economics is a much cleaner form of colonization than armies, and the two countries have a lot to offer to each other that way.
Between them, thats 1/3 of the world. You CAN’T fight that. Should a large-scale war break out, I think China would join India, the US would drop it’s uneasy alliance with Pakistan like a hot potato and go to bat for India. Woe be to anyone else who might want to join the fray. Even in a nuclear situation, Pakistan has a limited number of nukes and lacks the ability to lob them anywhere but India. While it would be tragic, India could absorb the losses (both in land and population) a lot easier than Pakistan would.
We must also remember that India still has a lot of goodwill in the world. During their little skirmishes with China, they managed to convince the whole world that China was the sole aggressor, despite clear evidence to the contrary. The world as a whole still thinks of India as Ghandi and Mother Teresa and is pretty inclined to believe what they say when arguments arise.
It doesn’t matter if nukes do get involved. With over a billion people, India can just use human wave tactics and afford to lose millions.
Have your life savings on the draw. Neither side has the attack to take 20 wickets on those wickets against those batsmen.
An old article somewhere, probably Military Review while I was doing time at Leavenworth.
Pakistan has long courted China as a counter-alliance against India and China has reciprocated. I think it is extremely unlikely China would intervene to aid India, though I also don’t think it is likely they would do much more for Pakistan. Their support has been more of a strategic nature, not a mutual defense pact.
Doubt it. India is not going to conquer and occupy Pakistan and when the smoke clears the U.S. will still need cooperation on the Afghan border ( not too mention the U.S. forces that would be trapped behins the lines as it were ). Nope the U.S. will try to negotiate a ceasefire and otherwise stay out of it and wisely so.
From here, a good overview of the current military situation with some scenarios: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/sbm.html
Then again…
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe India as “much poorer” than China. Its per capita GDP is about three times higher. It would be one of China’s wealthier provinces.
I withdraw that comment. It was based on Wikipedia’s statistics, which don’t seem to be backed up by other sources, even with PPP. For example, the CIA World Factbook claims that China’s PPP per capita GDP is twice that of India.
Yes, Usram, but after a major war, if the nuclear option is used, India would become much poorer than it is now. Still, valid point – China will pass India soon, economically, if the trend continues, but it’s still behind (because it started from further behind thanks to chairman Mao’s brilliant ideas such as the GLF and Cultural Revolution).
In any case, it’s doubtful China would be really interested in conquering India as it did Tibet – it’s not consistent with any historical trend or doctrine, and you’d have to be nuts to try to annex a billon-strong densely populated entity with a history of strong nationalism. They’d rather seek border adjustments, maybe even letting Nepal and Bhutan continue as nominally independent but as Chinese clients, and a neutralized India that is not a regional military/economic challenger.
Geographic realities kinda make it difficult for China to move in force on the ground in an India/Pakistan conflict, but it can likely force India to park a few divisions facing North that it could use out West.
Leaving China aside for a moment, India indeed has more “depth” in population, resources, industrial base, cash in the bank, and geographic spread to whitstand a one-on-one with Pakistan. And probably more nuke warheads, since they’ve had them longer. The nukes ARE a serious problem, as it’s uncertain how many there may be, and if the delivery systems each has are more suited to be used tactically (take out HQ of Western Army) or to take out industrial centers and transportation hubs (which usually are in or next to cities). India, because of the same traits mentioned above, happens to be more target-rich environment.
OK, so China HAS passed India. Still, the advantage would necessarily not be uniform across-the-board.
Do you have a cite for that? Does Pakistan have enough nukes with sufficient range to make such a difference? India has over a billion people. It could lose 100 million without blinking. Actually, it could lose 500 million and benefit. What’s more important is the industrial capacity, and is that not widespread? Even more important is the Indians’ sense of order.