Post #39,928
5/25/02 9:03:05 PM
|
I don't think it'll happen.
Hi Ben,
I'm not much of a gambler so I don't know what odds I'd put on it, but I don't think that any war between India and Pakistan will go nuclear. I don't expect a full war to develop either. Both sides realize that too much is at stake, and I think they realize that their governments would be in danger of falling if one broke out. Musharraf doesn't want a war with India.
This week's Economist has a a [link|http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1152773|story] about the issue.
I think a way will be found to calm the situation, and with luck the upcoming fall elections in Kashmir will be free and fair and help lead to a peaceful settlement of government of the area.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #39,934
5/25/02 11:38:11 PM
|
I want to believe that
And it may even be true.
But personally I feel that if there is a war, the US and Indian simulations are probably accurate, it would escalate and then go nuclear. So it comes down to avoiding one. The problem is whether Musharraf has enough political control to actually do anything useful to that end. If he doesn't, and India doesn't back down...
Perhaps we need to see a buffer zone patrolled by international forces? That let's India's army move away, while making it hard for terrorists to keep on moving across the border...
Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
|
Post #39,935
5/26/02 12:00:12 AM
|
I think the problem is...
That both sides think they can "win" a nuclear exchange. Perhaps we need to see a buffer zone patrolled by international forces? That let's India's army move away, while making it hard for terrorists to keep on moving across the border... Or, is there ANY possible settlement of Kashmir for both parties? Even to the point of the US moving in and declaring Kashmir to be the 51st state?
|
Post #39,936
5/26/02 12:02:11 AM
|
Re: I don't think it'll happen.
I don't think Musharraf wants a war either. But there are lot of fanatics in Pakistan that do, and on the Indian side there is a combination of those that want a war and those that are tired of fanatics from Pakistan coming over the border.
And then there is the problem of having large forces that are set for war facing each other over the border. One accident, real or staged, and things spiral out of control.
The fact that neither country has a large stockpile of nukes and there are questions about how reliable those nukes are actually makes the situation worse. It makes it to easy to take a gambler's view about the whole thing.
The one thing that does work in the favor of peace is that everybody outside India and Pakistan is applying pressure to back down. The risk of a nuclear exchange is to great to take any chance of a little conflict blowing out of proportion.
Jay
|
Post #39,946
5/26/02 5:34:33 AM
|
Still, in the case of Israel VS The World
All *know* that the Israeli nukes are pretty damn sure to function - the revelations of the former worker in the arsenal, assures that impression.
That probability didn't deter Saddam from daring them (with no assurance when he launched Scuds that - the US would restrain Israel, or if the US tried: would succeed).
So I don't see that the stark logic of "Why NOT-to!" VS any of these ongoing stalemates is at all convincing: only the French possess the oblique angles, vengeance is a dish which should be eaten cold.. AND let no good deed go unpunished..
The rest of the world is not so much wry as - repeatedly, almost predictably suicidal. Y'know?
Still, we can hope for one more reprieve from the obvious denouement of institutionalized, theological hatred. Can't we?
Ashton
Concur re Musharraf - his aim and also his possible, likely? inability to accomplish it.
|
Post #39,974
5/26/02 1:53:33 PM
|
Saddam is not stupid
Saddam is a perfect example of the cold, calculating bastard dictator. His first goal is his own survival, then comes increasing his power. The good of Iraq is only important as it regards the second point above.
Notice that when he launched the scuds against Isreal he didn't use chemical warheads, even though he clearly could have. His goal was to provoke an Isreali response, but was carefully gauged to not give Isreal any excuse to use a nuclear weapon. A conventional force response by Isreal would likely have shattered the colition of Arab states that was aligned against Saddam. The complications this would bring would buy him time, if nothing else.
Most Americans think Saddam is a conquest hopefull, but Saddam isn't that foolish. Both the Iraq-Iran war and the invasion of Kuwait had more to do with his survival then desire for land. The first was triggered by Iran's attempt to export their revolution to Iraq, while the second was caused by financial needs. Iraq's economy had not recovered after the war because oil prices where down, in part because Kuwait was exporting more then OPEC rules allowed.
Jay
|
Post #39,999
5/26/02 10:00:15 PM
|
Yours are the better points re Saddam.
And the non-chemical warheads was a (noted at the time) subtlety.
No, I didn't imagine Saddam stupid. But the leaders in question are all hostages of terminal religious pressures within the countries, which care nothing about such 'logic' - but only about Righteously prevailing. There can be only *One* true god = Mine. This is always the root IMhO, despite there being mundane $ considerations as always.
That is why I deem the head-of-State machinations to be about as relevant as in the ballet, The Green Table. Nukes + these ancient afflictions is simply a recipe for the madness which was at least artificially constrained during the stalemate of the cold war.
Apparently we needed that cold war a lot. It provided a mere political ideology to despise: now we are back starkly, to warring gods.
Ashton
|
