India set to launch "small war"

[Akira 0]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p01s04-wosc.html

"The battle-field scenario, says a senior Indian military official, is premised on the calculation that it will operate under the nuclear threshold and that the international community will step in to prevent the conflict from escalating."

Yeah thats swell.....

[WKK Gimbal 0]

fuck 'em

[Antichrist 0]

Its just getting better and better!

[Akira 0]

Links for Antichrist...

*something really wrong with that phrase....*

http://www.janes.com/securit....n.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2002....ex.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39214-2002May31.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin....98.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin....32.html

There are a few links....

[Antichrist 0]

Muahahahahahaha........ *evil laughter*

Well i was busy with uni and personal stuff lately, and since I believe NZ is the only country that has a possibility of surviving a WW3, I didn't give a damn about what was happening in the world!

Thanx for links, Akira!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ May 31 2002,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Muahahahahahaha........ *evil laughter*

Well i was busy with uni and personal stuff lately, and since I believe NZ is the only country that has a possibility of surviving a WW3, I didn't give a damn about what was happening in the world!  

Thanx for links, Akira!<span id='postcolor'>

Ever read "On The Beach"?

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ May 31 2002,19:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Muahahahahahaha........ *evil laughter*

Well i was busy with uni and personal stuff lately, and since I believe NZ is the only country that has a possibility of surviving a WW3, I didn't give a damn about what was happening in the world!  

Thanx for links, Akira!<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, NZ. My sister lives there. Very beautiul and the climate isn't too hot. Wish I had more time, so I could visit my sis'. Too bad Finland is on the other side of earth. The trip takes takes twp days

And what comes to the India-Pakistan war, let them kill each other if they really are so stupid that they want war.

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ May 31 2002,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">fuck 'em<span id='postcolor'>

Some people still think on the kindergarten level. Instead of ellaborating their opinions, they resort to short, one line insults.

1 or 2 weeks ago I started a similar thread, where people showed hardly any interest.

I thought most of us here were military buffs ? Yes ? No ? If a war were to break out it is likely Pakisan would be looking into small tactical use of the nuclear weapons as its troops are vastly outnumbered by India.

This would be the first time 57 years that a nuclear weapon would be used in modern warfare, which might prompt their use by other countries. Up until today the use of nuclear weapons was highly criticized, even when the president suggested using it in Vietnam, his staff convinced him not to go forward as it would draw mass criticism from the world.

India / Pakistan have fought wars before sure, and no one really cared as they only lasted a few weeks since India's forces are twice that of Pakistan. But now both of these countries posess nuclear weapons and they developed them for a purpose, not to just have them sitting around.

We may be on a brink of a nuclear war in this world and you say "who cares", "screw them". Hardly the educated responses one would come to expect from the intellectuals here. Then again, maybe I'm wrong about the audience on these forum.

I guess if this topic was named "SR-71 ADDON READY FOR DOWNLOAD WOW!!!" or "YET ANOTHER UH-1 BS MODEL BY "INEVERHEARDOFHIM"" then it would no doubt draw hordes of people. It's sad to see none of you are up for a military geopolitical debate. Go on now.

[Akira 0]

Well put advocatexxx.

Well I'm glad someone else said it. The complete lack of comprehension, or even worse, complete apathy towards the rather volatile situation there is rather pathetic.

Important geo-political and military situations get "fuck em" responses but there will be 50 odd pages about butt hair or something equally assinine.

And of course the standard "I don't care because it won't effect me" responses are the best of all. Right. It won't effect you. Such responses show a complete lack of comprehension about the enormity of the current crisis. And undoubtedly these same people will start screaming bloody murder when it does effect them, not in the least understanding that their apathy (and their countries apathy) led to the present situation.

Well, no skin off my ass. I'll keep posting timely subject matter, regardless of the lack of response or interest or the level of "intelligent" responses.

[Sadico 1]

Things are looking bleak, all right

Pakistan said yesterday that they don't follow the no-first-use doctrine, and a few days ago the indian president told his troops to prepare for the "ultimate battle" or something like that. Also today the Pentagon published an article that says an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan could kill 15+ million people. Considering that India has over 150 nukes and Pakistan is believed to have 50, and considering the population of both countries, i consider that to be a very optimistic estimate...

[Akira 0]

Considering how densely populated Indian, and Pakastani cities are, I think its a bit optimistic as well. Then you deal with fallout and the spread of radiation into the equally populated agricultural areas, leading to more deaths and starvation due to contaminated soil.

US is sending diplomatic envoys to try and "run interfernce" between the two. Lets see if that actually helps or if it will backfire on us.

Both are two proud to make a first overture of peace, nor are they capable with hardliners in both countries screaming for blood.

[Texican 0]

Maybe Im naive but do we really believe Pakistan will do that? I don't. Start a nuclear war? Yeah they say it but they say it to news reporters, they want attention and they want someone to step in. Sure they'd like to kick India's ass and vice versa but not at the expense of all your people, your family and your life. A basic rule of negotiation is that you believe your enemy is basically rational and will do what is in their own best interest, and killing yourself and others isnt in your best interest. If both sides can kill each other and both sides know it they prob won't. I'm not saying I am not worried about the situation but I don't think we are dealing with a bunch of zealots. Maybe I'm naive. I'm new to the forum.

[Akira 0]

I guess for the most part I don't believe they will. But then again I didn't think anyone would fly planes into the WTC....my perception of what people will and won't do has become skewed.

Also, I have to take in account that of the 3 wars the two countries have fought, 2 were over Kashmir. Since thier split the amount of bad blood between the two has only gotten worse...not better.

Both countries have hardliners pressuring the leaders to not back down. Right now from the looks of it they are more worried about "retaining" power than doing what is sane and rational. So they will continue to push each other. World War One started on an act of terrorism too. Stranger things have happened.

Unleashing the bomb? Thats a tough one. I doubt India would be the first, unless they made some HUGE tactical and strategic miscalculations. Their army vastly outnumbers the Pakistani army. So what about Pakistan? Well thats when you have to wonder where you draw the line. If your country is being overrun and about to be crushed....is this when you have nothing to lose, and unleash the bomb? If you're country is about to be destroyed why not? Better to assure partial destruction of them if you are going down anyway. I guess that is one way to look at it.

But then I have read reports that this is all posturing. But for posturing they are playing a dangerous game. Two armies, so close, with so much hatred, so much pride, and a highly disputed area in question.....something is going to happen.

Dunno....we will have to see. As I said. Nowadays I can believe anything can happen.

[Texican 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ May 31 2002,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both countries have hardliners pressuring the leaders to not back down. Right now from the looks of it they are more worried about "retaining" power than doing what is sane and rational. So they will continue to push each other. World War One started on an act of terrorism too. Stranger things have happened.

Unleashing the bomb? Thats a tough one. I doubt India would be the first, unless they made some HUGE tactical and strategic miscalculations. Their army vastly outnumbers the Pakistani army. So what about Pakistan? Well thats when you have to wonder where you draw the line. If your country is being overrun and about to be crushed....is this when you have nothing to lose, and unleash the bomb? If you're country is about to be destroyed why not? Better to assure partial destruction of them if you are going down anyway. I guess that is one way to look at it.

But then I have read reports that this is all posturing. But for posturing they are playing a dangerous game. Two armies, so close, with so much hatred, so much pride, and a highly disputed area in question.....something is going to happen.

Dunno....we will have to see. As I said. Nowadays I can believe anything can happen.<span id='postcolor'>

Every country has hardliners, but there wouldnt be political Hawks if there weren't Doves also. Our country, the U.S. has both too and we had them in the Cuban missile crises and what prevailed? Reason and real politics. I'm not saying there aren't crazy people out there BUT if i start believing everyone is crazy and willing to kill themselves and everyone else in the world then you know what, I might as well go home dig a hole, pull a blanket over my head and just hope it happens fast. I'm an optimist but I am also a realist. You say, they are worried about retaining power then doing what is sane, the ONLY way to retain power IS to do what is sane. They start a nuke war and there is no power for either country once that is over. Unless, of course the power they want is over the millions of poor dead people on their sidewalks and I can tell you something, you can't tax those people. They aren't dumb, you are very right they want power and it isnt gonna happen by nuking someone who can nuke you back.

And you say Pakistan is worried about their country being overrun and rushed and so they might think the option of sending nukes is more viable. If that is so why didnt they push that button. What did they do?? They called a press conference or talked to reporters or leaked it (I dont know how it became known) and they said this is our option. They did that to get help because they are afraid of being overrun. They don't want to nuke they want people to step in. Or why tell the world "Hey, I think I'll tell reporters for no reason" Politicians arent dumb. They know what making statements like that will do whether they mean to do it or not. Sorry for the long vent, Akira, I agree with alot of your points. Maybe Im more optimistic.

[Akira 0]

First off I should say that though it sounds like I am arguing the fact that a nuclear war between them is a given, thats not what I think....but I chose to take the stance that the threat should be recognized and not brushed aside.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good example. A period in history where we have come the closest (or rather the US and USSR came closest) to nukin' ourselves into oblivion. I wasn't there, so I don't know what it must have felt like (as the common peon) to come so close to destruction. Admitedly I don't get anything like this from the current crisis, but then again I think the two are completely different. Yes the US and USSR were enemies at the time. But were they enemies of the likes of India and Pakistan? I don't think we were. I think India and Pakistan are more bitter, fueled by bad blood, a hotly disputed territory, allegations of harboring, funding, and sending, terrorists to attack India (including a government parliment building), and years of built up tension. I think the Indo-Pakistani conflict is much more bitter and volatile than the US-USSR Cold War was, being based on ideological and religious grounds. At the least it is much more in the open.

When I say they are more worried about "retention" of power, I mean in such a manner where opponents at home see that they are doing what they think is "right". From what I can understand the majority of each country wants their leaders to stand up to the other, to be tough and not give in. This is the basis of the retention of power right now. It is posturing and not tied to the nuclear threat directly. Now no war will start as a nuclear war. Clearly it will begin as a conventional ground-air war. So no...there "retention" of power is not tied to a First Strike capability, nor their willingness to lob them at the get go.

But then, at some point of a standard conventional war, the loser will be forced to open up the question. Accept sound defeat, or open up the genie of nuclear use, whether tactical or strategic. Like I said before. If your country will be over run by your hated enemy anyway....whats to stop you? If your country is over run...you ain't going to get taxes anyway.

Only at that point will the sanity and rational mind of the two opponents come in. Or if we are "lucky"....a third party will step in, whether it be the UN...the US...or an "unbiased" third party.

But right now, everything is tied to posturing and talking tough...including the press conferences and the "leaked" information that Pakistan hasn't ruled out "first-use".

[Texican 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ May 31 2002,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good example. A period in history where we have come the closest (or rather the US and USSR came closest) to nukin' ourselves into oblivion.   Admitedly I don't get anything like this from the current crisis, but then again I think the two are completely different. Yes the US and USSR were enemies at the time. But were they enemies of the likes of India and Pakistan? I don't think we were. I think India and Pakistan are more bitter, fueled by bad blood, a hotly disputed territory, allegations of harboring, funding, and sending, terrorists to attack India (including a government parliment building), and years of built up tension. I think the Indo-Pakistani conflict is much more bitter and volatile than the US-USSR Cold War was, being based on ideological and religious grounds. At the least it is much more in the open.

When I say they are more worried about "retention" of power, I mean in such a manner where opponents at home see that they are doing what they think is "right". From what I can understand the majority of each country wants their leaders to stand up to the other, to be tough and not give in. This is the basis of the retention of power right now. It is posturing and not tied to the nuclear threat directly. Now no war will start as a nuclear war. Clearly it will begin as a conventional ground-air war. So no...there "retention" of power is not tied to a First Strike capability, nor their willingness to lob them at the get go.

But then, at some point of a standard conventional war, the loser will be forced to open up the question. Accept sound defeat, or open up the genie of nuclear use, whether tactical or strategic. Like I said before. If your country will be over run by your hated enemy anyway....whats to stop you? If your country is over run...you ain't going to get taxes anyway.

Only at that point will the sanity and rational mind of the two opponents come in. Or if we are "lucky"....a third party will step in, whether it be the UN...the US...or an "unbiased" third party.

But right now, everything is tied to posturing and talking tough...including the press conferences and the "leaked" information that Pakistan hasn't ruled out "first-use".<span id='postcolor'>

Well I would dare to say the Cuban Missile crisis not only was on the same level as this crisis but maybe even more dangerous. The US and USSR were enemies like India and Pakistan. We HATED each other with a passion, you remember that whole "Evil Empire" talk.

A hotly disputed territory? I seem to remember Germany being split like a hair and all the people who were shot just because they wanted to go to west Germany. We harbored people and Russian harbored people all in the name of political righteousness.

And I agree we never sent terrorists to attack Russia we sent spies and assassins. And thats only the ones we know about now. IF the tensions between the US and Russia werent so bad then there would have been no reason to use other countries in our dangerous game of parceling the world. Bay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and hell thats just one country! What about the other countries all over the world we used bc it was too dangerous to attack each other straight on.

And you say opponents at home are doing what they think is "right" and being pushed to be tough and stand up to each other. Well, since we are using the example of the Cuban MIssile crisis. Thats the perfect example. Both sides wanted to look like they came out winning, neither side wanted to lose face in the least. Which is why they came to an under the table deal that made both sides look good without telling the public the specific details. Which is exactly why Pakistan, I think, said nukes can be used. One, because they wanted to look stropng and two its a cry for help. Neither country is going to tell us straight out every little talk every little compromise every little negotiation. I bet they will come to some backroom deal that makes both of them coming off smelling like roses OR at the very least de-escalating the tensions down to a more managable way.

And yeah true if your country is overrun what are you going to do? Well, its not just Pakistan India has to worry about if they do that. If its just some local war and no one cares if India takes Pakistan then why is it such big news why are we responding? Why are other countries trying to get into the negotiation process? India isnt dumb either. They know what the score is.

I completely agree everything is posturing but I can tell you right now its just as possible in those little darkbackrooms where they arent going to spill leaks to reporters theres a lot of talking going on.

[Renagade 0]

I reckon they should all stand round a big bomb in both pakistan and india and blow themselves ups leaving a radioactive territory for me to inhabit

[advocatexxx 0]

If they decided to use nuclear weapons it's logical to assume it would be in a tactical manner rather than strategic. Most of their warheads range from 0.2 Kt (Hiroshima bomb was about 10 Kt) to 40Kt or so. They are Uranium/Plutonium based fission devices which, while being weaker than thermonuclear ones also tend to chew out a lot more radiation. I know USSR made deuterium/tritium based devices in excess of 60 Mt, I mean Jesus Christ, 60 Mt, I can't imagine them actually using it against the US.

Anyway, since USA has done the most research on nuclear devastation, its immediate and long term effects, one can state that USA has the most experience with them. India/Pakistan on the other hand have only finished developing these weapons 3 years ago. They do not posess the vital intelligence as to where/how these devices should be detonated. This includes, but is not limited to structural damage, fatalities, maximum blast effect, etc.

Though each country has spent a lot of resources, manpower and time to develope nuclear capability. India/Pakisan are both poor countries, where an average family earns an average of $400 USD, compared to an American family which earns around $70,000 USD or so. Their governments have had to squeeze their budgets as far as possible into allowing such programs to exist. Each country is quite eager to propertly test/use these devices.

Remember WWII ? (LOL). The President was under intense pressure NOT to use the bombs, while the other side pushed him into doing so, as over 2 Billion american dollars have been spent and the time and research should not go in vein.

Of course India/Pakistan posess these weapons to also serve as mere "scare" weapons. Something which was one of the elements that kept USA/USSR from waging war, as each side knew an all our war would ensure complete destruction.

One issue to keep in mind is that Islamabad - Pakistani capital is very close to Kashmir. If India began to gain ground, thus threatening the capture of Pakistani capital, the center of all government, economic and financial interests, then Pakistan would have to ensure such an even from taking place. Since the Pakistani military is less than half the size of India's, such a scenario could very well happen.

At such a point a direct nuclear attack on India's capital New Delhi would prove to be a devastating blow.

Of course, not too long thereafter India would surely launch a counter attack perhaps even twice the size.

Each side knows that when the other side uses a nuclear weapon, they will initiate a chain reaction, until they quite possibly extinguish all their nuclear arsenal.

Maybe a war will start, but only ground troops will be used, and the war may even end without any nuclear attack whatsoever.

Though both nations have been tense on the matter of Kasmir for decades. Thousands of soldiers lost their lives in fighting over it, and each country is quite possibly very sick and tired. They no doubt with to put an end to the Kasmir issue once and for all.

At times like these only an all-out war may prove to be the solution.

[Wobble 1]

Remember WWII ? (LOL). The President was under intense pressure NOT to use the bombs, while the other side pushed him into doing so, as over 2 Billion american dollars have been spent and the time and research should not go in vein.

the whole "we paid for it, better use it" as the reason for using the 2 bombs in WW2 just doesent hold water..

it probaly made up 5% of the reason they used them..

the other 95% was the FACT that Japan was ready to fight to the death and commit suicide.. as seen on the island hopping campaigns.. all japanese soldiers would fight to the deat, eve charging into machine gun fire with no ammo and only a bayonet, then all the japanese civilians would commit suicide..

if Japan wouldent surrender it would have guarenteed the extinction of their entire empire.. children old enough to hold a gun were told to fight, those younger would be killed by their parents, the same with old men.. the entire empire, virtually every living being was prepared to die, either by suicide or fight than to give up, because their GOD the emporer said so..

so it was either force them to surrender by using the bombs, or kill every single man woman and child of that country..

some say "but Japan was trying to surrender before the bombs!!"

not really, they were trying to negotiate a cese fire and in order to do so they had several outlandish demands that must be met.. such as

Japan being able to keep all the terrirory it had conquered at the peak of its campaign

the US removing ALL ships from the pacific

and other odd things that would never in a million years be accepted, considering after their suprise attack nothing but unconditional surrender would be tolerated (and rightly so)

so in reality, the use of the 2 bombs probably saved 10X as many japanese as they killed, not to mention the countless american and probably russian troops...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ June 01 2002,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember WWII ?  (LOL).  The President was under intense pressure NOT to use the bombs, while the other side pushed him into doing so, as over 2 Billion american dollars have been spent and the time and research should not go in vein.

the whole "we paid for it, better use it" as the reason for using the 2 bombs in WW2 just doesent hold water..

it probaly made up 5% of the reason they used them..

the other 95% was the FACT that Japan was ready to fight to the death and commit suicide.. as seen on the island hopping campaigns..  all japanese soldiers would fight to the deat, eve charging into machine gun fire with no ammo and only a bayonet, then all the japanese civilians would commit suicide..

if Japan wouldent surrender it would have guarenteed the extinction of their entire empire.. children old enough to hold a gun were told to fight, those younger would be killed by their parents, the same with old men.. the entire empire, virtually every living being was prepared to die, either by suicide or fight than to give up, because their GOD the emporer said so..

so it was either force them to surrender by using the bombs, or kill every single man woman and child of that country..<span id='postcolor'>

Not really wobble. If that was so, they wouldn't have given up after they got nuked. The reason the nuclear weapons were used was to save many american lives that would have been lost on a conventional campaign agains Japan.

advocatexxx:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We may be on a brink of a nuclear war in this world and you say "who cares", "screw them". Hardly the educated responses one would come to expect from the intellectuals here. Then again, maybe I'm wrong about the audience on these forum.

<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know if you are aware of that since the development of nuclear weapons we have always been on the brink of nuclear war. The USA vs. Soviet relations were far more dangerous than this. The India-Pakistan thing is nothing, a silent fart in the water. There is no risk whatsoever of that war going nuclear. This is out of two reasons:

1) Deterrance

2) International trade

India has a stronger military then Pakistan, but it cannot risk any of its major cities being scorched. This is the exactly the same thing that went on between USA and the Soviet Union as far as the nukes are concerned. In the end, the ones that are controlling the weapons are not madmen.

This is just another pissing contest on a grand scale. Nothing will happen in the end.

[USSoldier11B 0]

WWIII anybody? Except Germany won't be the "bad monkey" this time. Area is destabilizing much faster than any of you would believe.....trust me. Had a briefing three weeks ago, that's all I can say. Southern Asia is going to hell in a handbasket very quickly.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 01 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The India-Pakistan thing is nothing, a silent fart in the water. There is no risk whatsoever of that war going nuclear. This is out of two reasons:

1) Deterrance

2) International trade<span id='postcolor'>

I think you are right, but I am going to hold you to this quote if it does go nuclear

Btw, your new sig is very appropriate

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 01 2002,09:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 01 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The India-Pakistan thing is nothing, a silent fart in the water. There is no risk whatsoever of that war going nuclear. This is out of two reasons:

1) Deterrance

2) International trade<span id='postcolor'>

I think you are right, but I am going to hold you to this quote if it does go nuclear  <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... I am getting out of shape. One of the first things you learn when making an intelligence assessment is to cover your ass both ways so that you won't be wrong in any case.

Anyway, I'll change my prediction to that nuclear war is possible, but unlikely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Btw, your new sig is very appropriate<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you. For obvious reasons, it was the peace symbol that had to go