UK Thinks There Will Be An India-Pakistan Nuclear War

Great Debates
21

To me so much depends on how many Nukes each side has. From the BBC

The Jane’s defence group estimates that India has between 200 and 250 nuclear weapons, compared with 150 in Pakistan. The International Institute for Strategic Studies makes a more modest estimate, with up to 90 in India and up to 30 in Pakistan.

India is talking about "finishing” Pakistan. If they exchange Nukes I think it will end up being the bloodiest war in human history (which is saying something as we all know). I can’t see India absorbing a nuclear strike and then “coming to her senses” once the fur starts to fly. I think you can count on Pakistan pretty much emptying the nuclear revolver if it looks like she is going down.

If they exchange circa 200 nuclear weapons (!!) what does that mean for the rest of us? (he asked hysterically, but truly fearfully)

As humans we have been so lucky and just barely smart enough for so long, I’ve got to hope we can keep it going a while longer.

22

Tell me about paranoia! Here I am sitting in the tallest building in the third largest metro in India, and I’m trying to figure how manyeth target I am to Paki nukes !

Strangely, no one seems to care. No one’s checking the news every two minutes (we are all online), like they do when there’s any cricket match.

Historically, wars have dawned on us quite unpredictably, usually waking up and looking at the papers to realise we are at war. No gradual escalation leading to war. Atleast, that’s how Kargil went. So this time around too, I’m hoping that all the sabre rattling will fizzle out like it usually does.

On the other hand, I don’t trust either army to act sensible at this juncture.

Like someone mentioned before, this has been going on for 50 years and 3 wars and nothing’s come out of it. Except pain, death sorrow. Some feel the need to get it over with, decisively.

A lot of people have discussed and realised the futility of a limited strike - the spiral of escalation is unstoppable, once the LOC is crossed. The only question is, will it stop at conventional, or nuclear weapons. I really, really wish I knew.

One thing I daresay is that both heads of state right now, are in relatively good control of their nukes. And if I remember right, Indian nukes cannot be deployed without the President’s apporoval - an eminently sensible guy, who I trust not to strike first.

Keeping my fingers crossed, and realizing that I’ll be civilian target #8. :frowning:

23

Hey Bush!! Stop demonizing Iraq and Iran!! The India/Pakistan blowup will totally stop your war on terrorism on its tracks. Don’t listen to Cheyney and Rumsfeld. Unleash Colin Powell, man.

24

Unfortunately, your right.

25

“if anything would stop the boiling rage of Moslem hatred of the US, it would be destroying their holiest city of Mecca”
Or not :rolleyes:

26

That Wheeler is an asshole. The radical Muslims expect Israel and USA to nuke holy sites if it suits their interests. The radicals are fighting so desparately, it is as if they are frantically preventing that scenario from occuring.

27

Seems to have eased up today :smiley: . Breathing easy.

What’s up with everyone referring to Muslims as them ? Huh ? Disturbing.

28

Do you ever question to what extent the reporting and attention given to these conflicts might actually serve to fuel and sustain them?

Maybe some of these “situations” could have been averted if we didn’t have instant coverage of them?

29

Well, nuking Mecca is an insane idea, but I don’t see how the destruction of the Ka’aba is an intrinsically “sick, awful, horrible idea (I’m not talking about the consequences of a billion outraged Muslims on the warpath, just the value of the building itself).” It’s not an attractive building, nor is the gigantic mosque in which it resides. There are plenty of mosques whose destruction would be an aesthetic crime, like the Aya Sofia in Istanbul of the Blue Mosque in Isfahan.

Because they’re not part of us, that’s why.

30

Take a look around, gobear. There are millions of Muslims in the US. They are part of us.

Cite.

31

I humbly disagree. If we back Pakistan over India, the fundamentalists may forget about us for about five minutes, but soon they will be spouting hatred again. The Saudi Royal Family has already forgotten about the defense of their state during the Gulf War.

We have much more to gain from a long-term alliance with India. And while India may never have been a ‘real friend’, they’re not our enemy either. It also works with the closer ties to Russia.

32

In a fight between the US and a Muslim nation, whose side will they be on?

33

Besides, we have enough homegrown religious fundamentalists, we don’t need to import more. Pim Fortuyn was right.

34

That’s kinda contrary to the national creed, now isn’t it, gobear? You know: “Give us your poor, your huddled masses…”?

Aside from that, many of those millions were born here, or are otherwise citizens. In short, they belong here.

As a further aside, Muslims will back who they back, just as Jews back who they’ll back, and Catholics back who they’ll back… You get my point I’m sure. This is America, where diverse points of view are expected, are part of the national political dialogue, and are protected.

Pim Fortuyn may or may not have been right for his country, but he sure as hell would’ve been wrong here.

35

A point of clarification:

Please note that I purposely did NOT specifically assign connections between any of the groups that I mentioned above and whom they might or might not support, becasue each of those groups are comprised of many, many individuals, and assigning blanket associations to individuals is begging to be made wrong.

36

As long as Muslims actually adhere to the rest of the Emma Lazarus poem, you know, yearning to breathe free and all that, then I welcome them and I’ll even bake them a cake. I have no animus against Muslims qua Muslims. My objection stems from the strong streak of religious fundamentalism current among global Islam. Pim Fortuyn wanted to protect a gay-friendly, tolerant society from being subverted by Muslim immigrants who decided the Netherlands was too tolerant and wanted to take away his rights as a gay man.

We have enough jackass ministers who preach antigay hatred from the pulpit; we don’t need to add mullahs to the mix.

Plus a more stringent immigration policy might keep folks like Atta and Al-Shehi from getting visas six months after they blew up the WTC. YMMV.

Anyway, we have hijacked this thread enough.

37

If jackass ministers can exist and preach hatred (read: their point of view) and are protected by the constitution, why can’t mullahs do the same?

38

Well, that’s the scenario I’d just as soon not have happen by not letting mullahs and their fanatical followers come here.

39

Would you vote for someone who campaigns for banning/deporting/eliminating all christian ministers who preach their point of view (hatred, yes)? The point is such-like speech is protected and I don’t think we can suddenly choose what to allow and what not to allow.

40

No question that hate speech is protected, but do we lack enough homegrown hate that we need to import more? Gay folks already have to deal with Fred Phelps and his kind; do we need to import Abdul bin Phelps to add his voice?