India Pakistan conflict
-
Hi, I see so much discussion on this conflict in the Western Media. Fears abound that these two will use nuclear force against each other. But anyone who has lived in either and is not a Muslim or Hindu fanatic knows that this is impossible. India's rulers and Pakistan's rulers have accounts in the same Swiss banks. They both make money off all defence purchases including coffins that transport the remains of dead soldiers. There is no way these guys will nuke each other. This is all just posturing to keep the starving masses happy. It serves the interests of both rulers to do this sabre rattling, sign a few defence deals etc. The Pakistanis probably bought stuff from the Chinese and call it a 'Islamic' bomb. The Indian bomb was developed by a team headed by a Muslim from South India. The fanatics in India call it a 'Hindu' Bomb. Some Indian media links on the looting: Soldiers and officials Tehelka Scandal Coffin scandal Suresh
-
Hi, I see so much discussion on this conflict in the Western Media. Fears abound that these two will use nuclear force against each other. But anyone who has lived in either and is not a Muslim or Hindu fanatic knows that this is impossible. India's rulers and Pakistan's rulers have accounts in the same Swiss banks. They both make money off all defence purchases including coffins that transport the remains of dead soldiers. There is no way these guys will nuke each other. This is all just posturing to keep the starving masses happy. It serves the interests of both rulers to do this sabre rattling, sign a few defence deals etc. The Pakistanis probably bought stuff from the Chinese and call it a 'Islamic' bomb. The Indian bomb was developed by a team headed by a Muslim from South India. The fanatics in India call it a 'Hindu' Bomb. Some Indian media links on the looting: Soldiers and officials Tehelka Scandal Coffin scandal Suresh
G. Suresh wrote: There is no way these guys will nuke each other. Hope your right
"When a friend hurts us, we should write it down in the sand, where the winds of forgiveness get in charge of erasing it away, and when something great happens, we should engrave it in the stone of the memory of the heart, where no wind can erase it" Nish on life [methinks]
-
Hi, I see so much discussion on this conflict in the Western Media. Fears abound that these two will use nuclear force against each other. But anyone who has lived in either and is not a Muslim or Hindu fanatic knows that this is impossible. India's rulers and Pakistan's rulers have accounts in the same Swiss banks. They both make money off all defence purchases including coffins that transport the remains of dead soldiers. There is no way these guys will nuke each other. This is all just posturing to keep the starving masses happy. It serves the interests of both rulers to do this sabre rattling, sign a few defence deals etc. The Pakistanis probably bought stuff from the Chinese and call it a 'Islamic' bomb. The Indian bomb was developed by a team headed by a Muslim from South India. The fanatics in India call it a 'Hindu' Bomb. Some Indian media links on the looting: Soldiers and officials Tehelka Scandal Coffin scandal Suresh
I tend to agree with you. Still, it is a very dangerous game to play. Murphy's Law always has the final say... "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
Hi, I see so much discussion on this conflict in the Western Media. Fears abound that these two will use nuclear force against each other. But anyone who has lived in either and is not a Muslim or Hindu fanatic knows that this is impossible. India's rulers and Pakistan's rulers have accounts in the same Swiss banks. They both make money off all defence purchases including coffins that transport the remains of dead soldiers. There is no way these guys will nuke each other. This is all just posturing to keep the starving masses happy. It serves the interests of both rulers to do this sabre rattling, sign a few defence deals etc. The Pakistanis probably bought stuff from the Chinese and call it a 'Islamic' bomb. The Indian bomb was developed by a team headed by a Muslim from South India. The fanatics in India call it a 'Hindu' Bomb. Some Indian media links on the looting: Soldiers and officials Tehelka Scandal Coffin scandal Suresh
Good to see this take from within, but I've got to tell you man. From across the Pacific, it doesn't look like it's that obvious to us. Andrew Connell IM on MSN andrew@aconnell.com
-
Hi, I see so much discussion on this conflict in the Western Media. Fears abound that these two will use nuclear force against each other. But anyone who has lived in either and is not a Muslim or Hindu fanatic knows that this is impossible. India's rulers and Pakistan's rulers have accounts in the same Swiss banks. They both make money off all defence purchases including coffins that transport the remains of dead soldiers. There is no way these guys will nuke each other. This is all just posturing to keep the starving masses happy. It serves the interests of both rulers to do this sabre rattling, sign a few defence deals etc. The Pakistanis probably bought stuff from the Chinese and call it a 'Islamic' bomb. The Indian bomb was developed by a team headed by a Muslim from South India. The fanatics in India call it a 'Hindu' Bomb. Some Indian media links on the looting: Soldiers and officials Tehelka Scandal Coffin scandal Suresh
It has occured to me, too, that there really aren't many situations that would warrant a nuclear strike. Pakistan said that it would use nuclear weapons if it's existence was threatened. Of course, even in that case, the leaders would have to make the decision: even if the existence of the state were threatened, is it worth lauching a strike if the result would be a certain counterstrike? i.e. Would it be worth the loss of millions or tens of millions of your people? I can't really say which side the leadership would decide, but even in that case, it might be useful to avoid launching a nuclear strike. Nevertheless, it is useful to threaten nuclear war, and say that you would be willing to launch a nuclear strike in a dozen situations. Neither side knows exactly where the other's "line in the sand" is drawn, so both sides say that the line is drawn around all kinds of situations in an effort to prevent the other from doing anything. (e.g. Both could claim that they would launch a nuclear strike if the other takes control of Kashmir. Neither intend to. It would be stupid to do so, but if they can convince the other side that they would, then the other side won't dare attempt to take control of Kashmir.) It's a lot like a game of poker - it's very useful to bluff, and you know the other side is probably bluffing, but you never know for sure. Everything I've written so far, however, assumes that both sides have complete control over their nuclear arsenal and both sides have perfect information about whether or not the other has launched a strike. I think the greatest potential of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan lies in (1) an accidental launch, (2) a misunderstanding with military commanders which causes them to launch a nuclear strike (for example, if they wrongly believe that the other has initiated a strike). In the cold war, the US and Russia had a hotline which would allow them to immediately contact the other if something happened (and there were situations where US intelligence wrongly believed a single missle had been launched by Russia against the US). In their favor, a missle takes an hour to reach either side, so they had some time to talk to each other. Pakistan and India are so close that they only have a few minutes to decide whether or not a perceived strike is real or not.
-
It has occured to me, too, that there really aren't many situations that would warrant a nuclear strike. Pakistan said that it would use nuclear weapons if it's existence was threatened. Of course, even in that case, the leaders would have to make the decision: even if the existence of the state were threatened, is it worth lauching a strike if the result would be a certain counterstrike? i.e. Would it be worth the loss of millions or tens of millions of your people? I can't really say which side the leadership would decide, but even in that case, it might be useful to avoid launching a nuclear strike. Nevertheless, it is useful to threaten nuclear war, and say that you would be willing to launch a nuclear strike in a dozen situations. Neither side knows exactly where the other's "line in the sand" is drawn, so both sides say that the line is drawn around all kinds of situations in an effort to prevent the other from doing anything. (e.g. Both could claim that they would launch a nuclear strike if the other takes control of Kashmir. Neither intend to. It would be stupid to do so, but if they can convince the other side that they would, then the other side won't dare attempt to take control of Kashmir.) It's a lot like a game of poker - it's very useful to bluff, and you know the other side is probably bluffing, but you never know for sure. Everything I've written so far, however, assumes that both sides have complete control over their nuclear arsenal and both sides have perfect information about whether or not the other has launched a strike. I think the greatest potential of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan lies in (1) an accidental launch, (2) a misunderstanding with military commanders which causes them to launch a nuclear strike (for example, if they wrongly believe that the other has initiated a strike). In the cold war, the US and Russia had a hotline which would allow them to immediately contact the other if something happened (and there were situations where US intelligence wrongly believed a single missle had been launched by Russia against the US). In their favor, a missle takes an hour to reach either side, so they had some time to talk to each other. Pakistan and India are so close that they only have a few minutes to decide whether or not a perceived strike is real or not.