India revokes its autonomy thathas been in place since nationhood.
Pakistan while militarily impotent is getting on war footing
Three nuclear powers share the area
Fun times
Nothing to see here. China cracking down in Hong Kong. Nothing to see there either.
It’s all good.
Have always had a ton of respect for a country that named themselves after a Led Zeppelin song.
Have always had a ton of respect for a country that named themselves after a Led Zeppelin song.
Not a country, but yes, respect…
This story doesn’t seem to garner as much attention in the west as it should.
Its a simmering dumpster fire between two nuclear armed nations - neither of which is politically stable or competent.
I’d put this as the odds-on-favourite for nuclear conflict in the next year.
This story doesn’t seem to garner as much attention in the west as it should.
Its a simmering dumpster fire between two nuclear armed nations - neither of which is politically stable or competent.
I’d put this as the odds-on-favourite for nuclear conflict in the next year.
If Pakistan and India disappeared tomorrow why would the west care? They are like two bullies always about to fight. 20 years from now the news will be similar.
The skiing is amazing
.
.
This story doesn’t seem to garner as much attention in the west as it should.
Its a simmering dumpster fire between two nuclear armed nations - neither of which is politically stable or competent.
I’d put this as the odds-on-favourite for nuclear conflict in the next year.
If Pakistan and India disappeared tomorrow why would the west care? They are like two bullies always about to fight. 20 years from now the news will be similar.
I would see a 90% drop in robo calls.
If Pakistan and India disappeared tomorrow why would the west care? They are like two bullies always about to fight. 20 years from now the news will be similar.
The west should very much care. They’ve fought in 4 wars since 1947. The difference is that this time they have nukes.
The moral implications of a nuclear war in such a massively and densely populated area aside, and major war in the region would also disrupt the world. The global economy would be impacted - India is the 3rd larges user of oil in the world, and 5th largest GDP. The mass of refugees and displaced people would affect every country on earth.
Aint no one gonna be a ‘winner’ if it goes nuke on the sub-continent but if it did go that way I’d bet on Team Curry being the last one standing.
Pakistan has been goading India for years and it’s no secret they harbor and control LeT much like they do the Taliban. India’s military is much much bigger and more professional in the whole scheme of things. So it may well start conventional but once India starts rolling Pakistan will have to play their nuke card–probably after screaming bloody murder back channel to the US and Russia to get the Indians to back off. Or the Paki’s may just say “fuck it” and kick the tires and light the fire.
If anyone is interested on the “thinking” behind nuclear war fighting there is an entire body of work out there but I recommend starting with Lawrence Freedman’s essay “The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists” which you can find in the second edition of Makers of Modern Strategy. In very general terms the Indians will be influenced by their military and theorists’ education in the USSR/Russian system whereas the Paki’s will be influenced by their military and theorists’ education in GB/US systems. But both have their own proud traditions and answer to their own political masters. We hope.
The sub-continent would be devastated–as would tech support worldwide. India would survive but from the ashes of Pakistan will most likely come a Islamic fundamentalist theocracy that is entirely antithetical to the West (and Russia). So eventually we’ll see some Paki nukes show up in shipping containers at the Ports of Long Beach, Newark, and Leningrad.
/r
I’d bet on Team Curry being the last one standing
They all eat curry… so everybody wins?
Or did you capitalize Curry because you meant to imply Tim Curry is the real winner?
You know persactly who I meant there amigo 
My son did a study abroad semester in Bangalore when he was @ Eller Business school. He swore they even put curry in the ice cream and that he’d never eat curry again.
Or
Do you just want to do the time-warp again?
/r
The skiing is amazing
damn, you got me there.
If Pakistan and India disappeared tomorrow why would the west care? They are like two bullies always about to fight. 20 years from now the news will be similar.
The west should very much care. They’ve fought in 4 wars since 1947. The difference is that this time they have nukes.
The moral implications of a nuclear war in such a massively and densely populated area aside, and major war in the region would also disrupt the world. The global economy would be impacted - India is the 3rd larges user of oil in the world, and 5th largest GDP. The mass of refugees and displaced people would affect every country on earth.
Four wars since 47 shows the world there is a problem that needs to be resolved to end the madness. Use a third party as an arbitrator. If both sides want to end the madness they can, otherwise why not just start the 5th war now? I mean, what are they waiting for? The issues are not going to magically go away. At what point is enough madness enough? War 10? 15? Maybe some strategically placed nukes will speed up the “peace” process.
This story doesn’t seem to garner as much attention in the west as it should.
Its a simmering dumpster fire between two nuclear armed nations - neither of which is politically stable or competent.
I’d put this as the odds-on-favourite for nuclear conflict in the next year.
If Pakistan and India disappeared tomorrow why would the west care? They are like two bullies always about to fight. 20 years from now the news will be similar.
The cricket world cup would be far less interesting without these two teams.
Four wars since 47 shows the world there is a problem that needs to be resolved to end the madness. Use a third party as an arbitrator. If both sides want to end the madness they can, otherwise why not just start the 5th war now? I mean, what are they waiting for? The issues are not going to magically go away. At what point is enough madness enough? War 10? 15? Maybe some strategically placed nukes will speed up the “peace” process.
Edit: funny clip but relevant few seconds start at 0:28
https://youtu.be/UwoZUWxlblA?t=28
Don’t eat chicken soup and watch the video. Unless you want to choke from laughter.
Aint no one gonna be a ‘winner’ if it goes nuke on the sub-continent but if it did go that way I’d bet on Team Curry being the last one standing.
Pakistan has been goading India for years and it’s no secret they harbor and control LeT much like they do the Taliban. India’s military is much much bigger and more professional in the whole scheme of things. So it may well start conventional but once India starts rolling Pakistan will have to play their nuke card–probably after screaming bloody murder back channel to the US and Russia to get the Indians to back off. Or the Paki’s may just say “fuck it” and kick the tires and light the fire.
If anyone is interested on the “thinking” behind nuclear war fighting there is an entire body of work out there but I recommend starting with Lawrence Freedman’s essay “The First Two Generations of Nuclear Strategists” which you can find in the second edition of Makers of Modern Strategy. In very general terms the Indians will be influenced by their military and theorists’ education in the USSR/Russian system whereas the Paki’s will be influenced by their military and theorists’ education in GB/US systems. But both have their own proud traditions and answer to their own political masters. We hope.
The sub-continent would be devastated–as would tech support worldwide. India would survive but from the ashes of Pakistan will most likely come a Islamic fundamentalist theocracy that is entirely antithetical to the West (and Russia). So eventually we’ll see some Paki nukes show up in shipping containers at the Ports of Long Beach, Newark, and Leningrad.
/r
So the India/Pakistan conflict is actually a bit more multidimensional than one would think and I’ll get to that in a second. However, I’ll second your recommendation on Freedman’s essay which, tbh, I’m kinda surprised to come across someone else who’s read it (or any related material… the group of people who study such things is rather small). I’ll also mention that U.S. nuclear doctrine (and therefore NATO doctrine) has changed a lot in the last decade but that would get us considerably off track.
First, something needs to be clarified about Pakistan’s nuclear program: its nuclear scientists were educated within the U.S. and some of them even trained/worked within the U.S. civilian nuclear industry but there was absolutely zero… zilch, nada… technical assistance from the U.S. when it came to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. All of the technical and material assistance came from China. A popular notion in the public domain is that the U.S. helped Pakistan with its nuclear program to counter a Soviet-friendly India but that’s flat-out not true. China helped Pakistan with its nuclear program as a means of keeping India off-balance.
For a while, India theoretically had a “no first use” policy but, in practice, that policy may as well go in the dustbin:
https://www.bbc.com/…-asia-india-49354185
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently reaffirmed a long-standing tenet of India’s nuclear weapons doctrine: that it would not be the first to use the devastating weapons in a conflict. But he subsequently questioned how much longer that commitment would remain. He told the media that while India had “strictly adhered to” the doctrine thus far “what happens in future depends on the circumstances”.
When it came to nuclear targeting, both NATO and the USSR had a targeting hierarchy: land-based ICBMs first, naval ports second, air bases capable of flying nuclear weapons third (two and three jostled depending on the decade), industrial sites fourth, and population centers fifth. Both parties would strike with land based ICBMs first and get nuclear capable bombers or strike aircraft into the air immediately and both parties would hold SLBMs in reserve as that was seen by both as the most survivable leg of the triad (until the Toshiba incident, the U.S. had a significant upper-hand in this realm).
Neither India nor Pakistan have true triads as neither have a credible sea-based capability. India is working on an SLBM and a handful of sea-based cruise missiles but none are operational. Pakistan has announced such ambitions but it’s unlikely they will ever amount to more than precisely that. I will note that Pakistan (supposedly) has nuclear tipped torpedoes which they could use to target port infrastructure in Mumbai… but, again, the effectiveness of such a weapon is dubious.
India relies on a motley assemblage of silo-based and road-mobile ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. India can, in theory, deliver nuclear bombs by air but there’s a legitimate concern that such a delivery method would either be effective or survivable.
Pakistan relies a handful of road-mobile launchers and silo based ballistic missiles. Pakistan can, in theory, also deliver nuclear bombs by air but they have the same effectiveness and survivability concern as the Indians.
Neither India nor Pakistan posses the domestic capability to track the other’s nuclear weapons or detect a nuclear launch by the other and for both flight times are incredibly short. Neither’s weapons are particularly accurate and neither have particularly advanced fuses. Accordingly, neither country genuinely possess a genuine “tactical” nuclear capability. That is to say, neither can use their nukes to target the other’s nukes and neither can effectively use a nuke to meaningfully influence a land war. Keep in mind that, in most countries, only very bright people make it into the military circles that handle targeting and such individuals are very aware of the limitations of their weapons systems.
When you take all of the foregoing into account, a terrible realization materializes: Pakistan’s nukes will likely be used to target Indian military bases close to population centers and population centers outright. India’s nukes are likely be targeted in a similar fashion.
This is far from a one-dimensional conflict as I mentioned earlier.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strong military and economic ties though it should be noted that the Saudi’s have slightly revised this view in light of Pakistan’s technical assistance to Iran’s nuclear program (there are three theories on this: one is that Pakistan simply stabbed Saudi Arabia in the back, two is that Pakistan’s gambit was to make Saudi Arabia more reliant on Pakistan, and the third was this was done at the behest of China which was/is a large contributor to Pakistan’s nuclear program). An informal Ace in the Hole for Pakistan would be to, in concert with Saudi Arabia, shut down oil shipments through the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that runs to the Red Sea with a capacity of ~5.5mbpd and the resulting oil price spike from shutting down Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Iranian supplies would cause more than enough of a price spike to make it worth the KSA’s trouble plus, in theory, the KSA could still supply Pakistan.
China also views India with trepedation and for good reason. Even if India is poorer on a per-capita basis it is still a significant regional power. Geographically, India is in a much better strategic position and, crucially, India is perfectly positioned to cut off oil supplies to China. Combine India’s better geographic and strategic position with traditional Indian nationalistic sentiments and India’s desire to copy China’s development model (which, by default, is at odds with China economically) and China has a very legitimate reason to want to keep India focused on Pakistan.
India is perfectly aware that China views Pakistan as a strategic “distraction” and it resents China’s aid to that effect. India does not have the naval capability to keep the Persian Gulf open should Pakistan and Saudi Arabia decide to hold hands and kick India and Iran in the teeth and this is where India has an unsavory choice: should a war between the two go “hot” India will have to choose between either overrunning Pakistan in an effort to short-circuit an oil blockade… a strategy that will guarantee a nuclear exchange… or simply pull back and sue for peace.
The upshot for China is that a war between India and Pakistan is a lose-lose proposition for China. If the war goes hot, China will lose access to oil which it flat-out cannot replace. In retrospect, this was a significant miscalculation on China’s part and probably born out of China’s much lower oil consumption and much higher production at that time along with some optimism for future offshore resources with the calculus being that India would be a bigger long-term problem than oil. With that said, there’s little China can do now to influence the conflict between India and Pakistan.
Out of momentum for now, perhaps I’ll come back and tie up some loose ends.
I do not pretend to know the accuracy or timeliness of response capability of either side on the sub-continent.
Any talk of nuclear war fighting strategy is gonna have to start back with Bernard Brodie. Freedman’s essay is merely an overview of this arcane line of thinking.
It seems entirely plausible–as you posit–that both side will have to go with counter value targets (as opposed to counter force targets). So we’re talking annihilation of major population centers and the effect that would have on the “will” of an opponent to continue. This is an extension of arguments made by proponents of air power that traces its origins all the way back to Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell.
I am comfortable in prognosticating that in the ensuing aftermath some of the Paki devices will get into the hands of nefarious actors to our collective misfortune. The people of the sub-continent having long been abandoned to a life of misery and shit.
/r