Actually, Hitler was quite rational in a similar scenario. So is Kim Il Jung the 2nd.
Hilter of course wasn’t worried about nukes, but he was worried about checmical weapons. He had lots of new and improved versions he could have obliterated London with. But he never used them, not even in the final days of the war. The reason was quite simple: the Allies had large stocks of mustard gas all over the place and were prepared to turn every living man women and child in Berlin into a a screaming qreck clawing thir eyes out while their lungs dissolved. C’est la vie.
Kim Il Jung talk big, but I think he is a rational actor. His entire plan is simple: sound like you’re a dangerus madman. Make big dangerous speeches and threaten dire threats if you don’t get your way. And why not? It worked before. As long as China backed him he was safe. However, he’s been a lot quieter for a while now. There are two reasons for this: first, China has grown to despise the bastard. Second, it hasn’t worked. The US diplomats have been very polite and very attentive and talked a lot to his people… but nothing ever gets done. ithout Russian and Chinese backing, even with nukes, he’s in a very tight position and knows it. I’m sure they realize their country is decaying into nothing. And I’m sure they know there will be a reckoning sooner or later, and the problem won’t be America, but their own people.
Look I really don’t care. It was a very sloppy analogy and a snide swipe at gun owners.
Your example isn’t much better. Would you be ok with 1 nation having 1 nuke (1-13 million dead) but upset that another had 130 million bullets?
If you want to work out a calculus of death knock yourself out. How about Deaths/Complexity to Kill on a per platform basis? That way a nuke would be 13 million/1 button vs. 1 death/1 trigger bullet.
How many times did WWIII almost start by accident. If more countries have them, how long 'til the BIG BOO BOO.
Of course, how can the US say others shouldn’t have them when any idiot would conclude the US has way more than enough. We can’t just annihilate the Russian Commies. We must make sure not one communist brick is left on top of another communist brick.
I’m not sure that this is entirely correct with regard to the reason why India and Pakistan pulled back from the brink. As I understand it, Indian generals have already considered projected losses from a nuclear war with Pakistan and decided they are within acceptable limits when one considers what they will gain.
Pakistan doesn’t have that many nukes, India will just eat them. As I recall, India reckons they will lose 15-20 million people.
Pakistan, on the other hand, will be totally annihilated. India has hundreds of nukes. If a war goes nuclear, India won’t hold back. There will be no such thing as Pakistan after the war. India, meanwhile, will be hurt but they will survive.
India will undoubtedly win the war and in terms of war gains they will get:
total control of Kashmir
remove the nuclear threat from their neighbour once and for all
possibly gain control of all of Pakistan (if they want it) and reunite that territory with India
eliminate the terrorist threat that has been coming out of Pakistan (in terms of attacks in Kashmir and attacks in India itself)
So, my understanding is that India is pretty much all in favour of a war, nuclear or otherwise. The only reason why they haven’t done it yet is because they are waiting for an internationally acceptable excuse to go ahead with it. They don’t really want to be seen as the aggressor if they can avoid it.
So the reason they pulled back from the brink wasn’t really because of the nuclear deterrence angle. Just that they haven’t had an internationally acceptable excuse come along yet (although that terrorist attack on the Indian parliament nearly did it).
If I were Pakistan I would rein in my terrorist activities for a while and try being nice to India rather than constantly antagonising them because if it comes to a war (and a war is what India fully wants) then Pakistan and it’s people are history.
Perversely, India and China would both benefit from a nuclear war: they have populations which are huge - a billion apiece. They can shrug off what would to the West be horrendous losses. Neither would even blink at losses of 500 million.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been to India. It’s a vast country teeming with people but it’s also quite a poor country. I once took a boat trip down the river Ganges (in a rowing boat) and was somewhat surprised to see all kinds of things floating in the river. First I passed a dead cow and the boy who was rowing my boat explained to me that dead cows just get tossed into the river.
Shortly thereafter we passed a human foot sticking out of the river. My reaction was something like “Holy fuck, what’s THAT?”. The boy calmly explained that it’s not uncommon for lepers to die on the street and get thrown into the river.
As you walk around the streets of India you see people with horrific diseases begging. There’s no social security as such. When you are born and die, you don’t get birth and death certificates issued. Life is pretty cheap really.
Many people say that the first time they see a dead body is in India. Just lying on the street. Going to India is a major culture shock to people coming from the west. You might see a group of people standing by a river burning a dead body - that’s their way of holding a funeral. It’s not all organised and paid for and hidden from sight like in the west.
Life is cheap in these countries. You can criticise them and say they should change and they would probably agree with you but that’s just how it is right now. You could die on the street in India and someone might just chuck you into a river and that’s the last anyone will ever hear of you. there will be no public inquiry, no death certificate issued, no ambulances racing to the scene, no police investigation, no coroners report, no nothing. No one gives a shit.
You can pronounce it’s bad sitting there in your rich ivory tower of western wealth but when you are dealing with India’s teeming masses and grinding poverty, it’s understandable that such things happen.
I was simply saying I don’t believe most Indians are in favour of a nuclear war against Pakistan Jojo. I’m not quite sure what your post has to do with this point. I haven’t been to India, but have talked to someone who was born there, and a couple others who have visited. I’m have a fairly good idea of how poor India is, and what happens to the poor there. I count myself very lucky that I live in the rich west in my “ivory tower” (actually, its a studio flat).
True, there can be very different attitudes towards death in the 3rd world. This isn’t suprising, as they have to live with it on a daily basis. A greater level of desensitisation and indifference is not suprising. However, this doesn’t mean that they have any less feeling towards people they actually know (friends and family) than we do. I don’t see how you could take this to mean they would be in favour of a nuclear war.
India is currently debating whether its cricket tour of Pakistan should go ahead. The population and press are in favour, it seems to be the politicians who fear the potential fall out - if their team loses that is.
Are there any Indians on this board who could shed light on this issue? Is India in favour of a nuclear war with Pakistan?
Grey I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I am trying to follow the intent of the OP and argue rationally for nuclear proliferation. I agree that nukes are special. I am trying to figure out why and what it means. If it was just a case of there being too much potential for mischief and carnage then how much should we worry about concentional build-ups Are we worried about one-shot oopsies? Are we concerned about lax security allowing bad people without fixed addresses? Are we worried that nukes will be used in the internecine battles prevalent through much of the world? Are we concerned that use of nukes in massive civil works programs will destigmatize their use elsewhere? Do we worry that first world nations will no longer be able to intervene with impunity in third world crises? I don’t really expect you to necessarily answer any or all of these questions. Jojo Even if China or India did wish to reduce the surplus population and did hold human life to be cheap or worthless I think is highly unlikely that nuclear war would be a solid choice (as opposed to the old standbys of starvation and genocide). Even if the hold the huddled masses in contempt it is extremely unlikely that a nuclear adversary would target the most densely packed slum just to get up the body count. Far more likely is that the most technologically advanced and productive areas would be targeted. A modest number of weapons could probably wipe out concentrations of education, technology, and industry and the centers of administration necessary for continued governance, which, while solving the ostensible population issue, does not necessarily make the governments job easier.
Sorry about the swipe. Really ** Rashak Mani’s** snide analogy bugged me, not your replies. I wasn’t planning on commenting too much on this issue but, I’ll try to answer your questions.
Nukes are simply bombs, though bombs with significantly greater capacity to kill and contaminate a region. While 1000 daisy cutters might accomplish the same as a small nuclear bomb, the logistics, man power and support structure required to utilize that killing capacity makes it difficult to operate and wield whimsically. The 1000 bombs also allow for the potential for the defender to eliminate some of the incoming carnage. Since the removal of even 10 bombs reduces the overall destruction by 1% when dealing with millions of deaths 10,000 lives saved is substantial.
A nuclear weapon however requires simply either a method of entry to a country or a ballistic delivery system. The first would be stealthy and, in my view, not normally a vector of choice during declared wartime. The second method has progressively become more available to nations. In fact the coupling of missile systems and nuclear weapons programs for export is the truly frightening aspect of modern proliferation. The ability to launch a weapon that can cover the globe and with impunity visit a measure of death and destruction never seen before makes the expansion of nuclear capable countries dangerous. The restraint of complete annihilation is removed as the newer nuclear powers lack the resources to field MADDening numbers of weapons. The result would be a field of potentially winnable nuclear wars in various theaters of the world where the industrial nations are too removed to intervene. As others have mentioned the India/Pakistan conflict lack enough weapons to reduce both sides to cinders. A successful first strike would enable 1 side to “win”.
As for conventional weapons, they have a much lower death metric. They are slower, more cumbersome and a difficult to hide. A 100 million man army in China is not particularly frightening to anyone not bordering China, as the resources to move that force any great distance are almost prohibitive.
I’m not saying that Indians love their families any less than anyone else and I’m not saying that all Indians are in favour of a nuclear war with Pakistan. I’m saying that the political class (the ruling class) and the army have reached a decision that they could survive a nuclear war whereas Pakistan couldn’t.
Also I think it is true to say that India (and Indians) are thoroughly pissed off at Pakistan and would not particularly object to a war to finish off Pakistan once and for all.
Combine these two factors with a certain disregard for human life that would not be present in, say, America and you end up with a situation where a nuclear war becomes a real possibility. The current thaw in relations between the two countries is very welcome but don’t be fooled into believing that the underlying hostility has gone away. To get rid of this hostility will take a generation of peace and friendly relations between the two countries, the end of all terrorist activity and a solution to the Kashmir problem.
Otherwise the thaw in relations will only last until the next terrorist outrage or the next large military battle in Kashmir and we’ll be back to square one again.
MMI said:
I didn’t say that China or India would embark on a war in order to reduce surplus population, that was qts. India would embark on a war in order to eliminate the threat that they perceive coming out of Pakistan. The loss of life caused by this war would be considered regrettable but acceptable in terms of collateral damage.
They don’t want to kill their own people, it’s just that they have made a cost/benefit calculation and they’ve decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. It sounds ruthless putting it like this but I’m just repeating what (I think) is the view of the Indian military and political class (and probably even a substantial part of the Indian population).
Grey said:
Au contraire, India have plenty enough weapons to reduce Pakistan to cinders.
OK Jojo, your clarified argument sounds a lot more reasonable to me. However, I think you’re vastly underestimating the Indian resistance to a nuclear war. You are probably right to say that elements of the military believe the loss of life would be acceptable. However, I’d be amazed if the majority of the politicians or public felt the same way.
Also, I think I’m right in saying the trade winds in that region blow from west to east. Any nuclear fallout would effect India badly.
You are right to say there is still a lot of hostility between India and Pakistan. Your assessment of a true peace process requiring at least a generation’s work is probably accurate. However, I’d say that the chances of a nuclear war are pretty low. Very few people would consider it to be worth the risk. Any Pakistani nuclear weapons would be targeted at the populous and industrialised cities.
Finally, does India really have hundreds of warheads? I was under the impression they only had a small number. Does anyone have any solid information on this?
Jojo Sorry about misattributing thoughts to you. Although I do think that any nation that approached the question rationally might be able to say that x million casualties might be acceptable in general but would back off quickly if they don’t get to choose the x million. (and that is aside from all of the negative international trade and relations repurcussions of going nuclear).
India in particular has no special need for dealing with the Pakistan issue right now I would think. The longer it waits the greater the difference in wealth, population, prosperity grows. OF course internal politics may trump rational analysis at any time.
I think you’d find the 10-20% of India’s population comprised of Muslims at least somewhat nonplussed by the idea that they want war with Pakistan. Honestly, I’m quite sure that very few Hindus outside the BJP’s extremist wing would agree too.
Honestly, I really hope you aren’t an Indian. While this sort of calculated decision-making might at least have been considered by Indira’s Emergency government (for those of you who don’t know, the Emergency was essentially an orgy of mass forced sterilizations and euthanasia brought on by a (somewhat justified) fear of overcrowding), the current administration is quite reasonable.
In any case, nuclear war with Pakistan would mean nuclear annihilation of Mumbai/Bombay. With it would go approximately 80% of India’s private capital, its entire credit system, and the paychecks- indeed, the entire payroll departments- of several hundred software and semiconductor businesses. India might survive nuclear war, but not in any meaningful way. Even if Pakistan were to be destroyed, there would be no economy to support an occupation.
You’re right that it isn’t worth the risk but the India/ Pakistan situation is one that could turn nuclear very easily not long after a conventional war starts. This is because India has a huge superiority in terms of conventional military and the war would fairly quickly turn India’s way leaving Pakistan with no option but to either launch a nuclear strike or surrender. According to the CIA world factbook Pakistan spends approximately $3 billion on it’s military per year whereas India spends $11 billion.
I exaggerated when I said India had “hundreds” but they do have a lot more than Pakistan. It’s hard to pin down exact figures because they keep them secret. This Guardian article says that India has about 150 and Pakistan has 25-60. This site on the other hand says that India has about 60 plus and Pakistan has 24-48. But note that India has enough Uranium to make 30-50 more.
There is also the question of delivery systems, there is some doubt about Pakistan’s ability to actually deliver it’s nukes. Also bear in mind that most of Pakistan’s population live in 4 or 5 big cities situated along the Indus river, with 10 million in Karachi alone.
Quote from that Guardian article:
MMI:
This is, I think, the problem. Both India and Pakistan have got into a mindset where they think that a war will come sooner or later. I agree that saner minds will probably usually prevail and war will be averted but I wouldn’t underestimate the hostility that is there and the willingness of many in India to destroy Pakistan once and for all, whatever the cost to themselves.
Dutchboy:
I’m not aware of any scientific polling that has been done to ascertain peoples views on this so we can’t say for certain. To a large extent I admit I’m basing my opinion on things I have read and Indians I have spoken to. I certainly get the impression that it’s not just an extremist thing. Yes Indian muslims are probably not in favour of smashing Pakistan but Indian muslims account for 10 % of India’s 1 billion population. The other 90% are not muslim and are royally sick of Pakistan.
You’re thinking rationally which is a mistake in this case because rational thinking does not take fully into account the level of enmity between the two countries. The impression I get is that India will almost smash Pakistan just for the hell of it - who cares about the consequences.