BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

India, Pakistan and nuclear war?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
08:41 / 29.05.02
It has struck me as a little odd that while this place is swamped with discussion of the growing influence of the EU (and how it'll never be bigger/badder/better than the US, man) but there has been nothing on the growing crisis in Kashmir. The prospect of the worlds first nuclear war is looking increasingly likely, and yet people are bickering about whether footballer Roy Keane should have sworn at his manager or not.

So Is nuclear war and global politics even important anymore or is it so far removed from our every day lives as to be safely ignored and classified as 'other'.

Does anyone have any views at all on Kashmir? or the political situation in India and Pakistan that have lead up to this moment?
 
 
Naked Flame
09:30 / 29.05.02
I don't think it's apathy. I just don't think there's much the average Western citizen can do much about. We drew the battle-lines for them, we armed them, we involved them in our proxy wars, and now there's bugger-all we can do except watch the whole thing unfold and hope their Powers that Be make sense of the situation and that our leader's calls for peace don't sound too hypocritical.

Pakistan worries me greatly: India has now apparently ruled out first use of nukes, but Pakistan has refused to do so.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:31 / 29.05.02
Well, they're all foreign, aren't they? And it's an awfully long way away.

And no one's really going to start a nuclear war, are they? Not in this day and age? Not even over there where they have funny beliefs.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:02 / 29.05.02
To address briefly the Roy Keane issue: it is typical middle-class prole-baiting to say "look! The scum are more interested in football than impending nuclear war over Kashmir!" Yes, it would be nice if a ten-million-man march swept to Downing Street to demand strenuous efforts for peace, but to say that football is a bad distraction while Greek theatre or the Invisibles is a good one just seems fatuous. Better by far to criticise the newspapers who majored on Byers' resignation today (i.e. pretty much all of them, as far as I can tell), rather than kvetching that the back pages are taken up by -shock horror - sport. Henry Porter has done exactly this in the Guardian, and it just smacks of being picked last in the schoolyard.

Besides, the World Cup can at least be predicted.

However, Porter's article is quite useful for identifying some of the reasons for the muted international response. It's online here.

On the likelihood of fire and tumult, there's a risk assessment here. Unfortunately, as a glance at the respective population figures (142million to a billion), India comprehensively outnumbers and outguns Pakistan (by about 2 to 1, in fact, which con Clausewitz would say gave them a near-conclusive advantage). So a conventional war would be an extremely difficult proposition, especially as losing Kashmir is not a realistic option (remember the good old days when wars rearranged borders?) if there is a possible, albeit nuclear, response. Before condemning too heartily, it may be worth noting that similar thinking was intended to justify nuclear resistance in the face of the overpowering mass of the Warsaw Pact...

Of course, India also has a shitload more nuclear warheads (probably - Jane's isn't totally clear on the numbers) too, but in a limited nuclear exchange that shouldn't matter as much. Besides, India a) wouldn't want to exhaust its nuclear arsenal with China over its shoulder and b) is aware that these things cost *money*, you know, as well as political will.

Personally, I'm bricking it.
 
 
sleazenation
10:20 / 29.05.02
Actually i don't think of football as an easy target because its (arguable) status as a prole game, but it IS the most prominent, easiest and most inconsequential (in that outside of hooligan related violence life and death do not usually hang in the balence) spectacle at the moment. Is it elitist to pick the big targets first?
 
 
Dao Jones
10:22 / 29.05.02
Should I understand that this, along with the comments in the other threads in the Conversation, represents a general consensus here that the Freedom of the Indians and Pakistanis does not extend to blowing the shit out of one another and polluting the biosphere?

Interesting.

So should the West intervene? The US? The UN? The EU? NATO?

And what price would we pay afterwards?

Or should we hope for a limited nuclear engagement, to remind everyone that nukes suck, that violence solves nothing, and accept some else's losses as a structural outcome which is better happening as far away as possible? Always remembering that the use of nukes elsewhere may crack some kind of psychological barrier and allow others to feel it's a legitimate or thinkable option?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:47 / 29.05.02
The Times of India has reported the possible death toll at 8-12 million, with God knows how many more being made homeless and/or subsequently dying due to the area's generally dodgy emergency services being more than usually banjaxed. Not to menion subsequent poisoning from cheap and dirty missiles...

Hell of a lesson. Thank God they're not white, that's all I'm saying.
 
 
lentil
10:50 / 29.05.02
a general consensus here that the Freedom of the Indians and Pakistanis does not extend to blowing the shit out of one another and polluting the biosphere?

As opposed to the freedom of Western civilization, which Barbelith agrees does extend to blowing the shit out of one another and polluting the biosphere?
I think the consensus to which you refer is actually that the Freedom of Humanity should not extend to said action.

Not that this sheds any light on the reality of the situation
 
 
Naked Flame
10:55 / 29.05.02
well I don't know about you lot but a 'limited nuclear engagement' is not on my christmas list.

As far as nuclear use providing some kind of watershed for subsequent tactical usage (the kind of thing that the US were talking about recently) I don't think that the atomisation of a few million people is going to legitimise nukes at all.

Should the West intervene? Aren't we doing so already? Haven't we been doing so for, oooh, a couple of hundred years now? Well, I guess it depends what you mean by intervention. Pakistan have called for UN observers already, I understand.
 
 
sleazenation
11:02 / 29.05.02
The BBC's lowdown on the nuclear stakes.
 
 
Dao Jones
11:13 / 29.05.02
I'm always saying 'intervene'. Usually, this is because I'm a paternalist fuckbake. Today, apparently, we all are.

And yes, it would be a hell of a lesson, for the entire world, if they actually managed a limited nuclear engagement. It would be the worst thing to happen since, oh, August 6th 1945. But balanced against the other six billion of us who could die in a full nuclear war, it might seem smaller.

Understand, I don't want it to happen at all. I just wanted to mention the possibility that the only thing which will get the nuclear states to disarm, which would finally place nukes out of court, might be someone using them.

Of course, as I said, it might also make people think hey, it's been done, and the world didn't end...

I don't think that the atomisation of a few million people is going to legitimise nukes at all.

I'm guessing you're not a real big fan of nukes in the first place. You probably wouldn't chose to build them. Adjust your perspective accordingly...

As to intervention, I mean step in with heavyweight diplomatic and military emphasis and say "NO". I don't mean sending Jack Straw to talk to Jaswant Singh at the same time as selling India another billion's worth of hardware.

Thank you so much, Mr. Blair, you smiling hypocritical fuckhead.
 
 
sleazenation
11:22 / 29.05.02
so basically, right up until humanity wipes itself out in a full scale nuclear conflict there will always be *someone* willing to say "hey, this hasn't wiped out humanity yet, and until it do-"
 
 
sleazenation
11:23 / 29.05.02
which is not to discount the opinion, but merely to state that it it cannot be proved inaccurate without a global catastrophe.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:44 / 29.05.02
I don't mean sending Jack Straw to talk to Jaswant Singh at the same time as selling India another billion's worth of hardware.

Hear fucking hear. I could barely believe my ears when I heard Straw defending our continuing arms trade with India whilst at the same time claiming to be trying to promote 'peace'... Except of course, he's not really trying to cause peace, because India has said the magic words "Islamic terrorists!", so Straw has said that Pakistan must "crack down on terrorism", or presumably get what's coming to them... Argh!

But honestly, the very idea of people like Straw, or Bush, being involved in trying to avert a conflict is sickening and laughable. The example has been set to nations like India and Pakistan that belligerence, not diplomacy, is the way to settle international disputes, and it's been set by the USA with the UK merrily tagging along...
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
13:06 / 29.05.02
Heard on All Things Coonsidered yesterday that Pakist and and India don't have a hotline and very little early warning system. So either country would find out about 30 seconds before the bomb went off and they'd have no way of knowing if it was an accidental launch or not. Scary. A meat shield of blue helmets along the 'line of control' seems a prudent step, since, as we all know, accidents happen.
 
 
Saveloy
13:16 / 29.05.02
Morrocco Mole:

According to the article linked to by Haus:

"Much has been made of the absence of a "hotline" allowing General Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee to communicate directly.

In fact, bilateral communications of this kind are readily available and were indeed used during the 1999 Kargil crisis when Mr Vajpayee spoke with Narwaz Sharif, then Pakistan's leader.

It is often overlooked that India and Pakistan have a track record of managing potentially nuclear crises - Brasstacks in 1986-7; Zarb-i-Momin in 1990 and Kargil in 1999 - and that they have in place a number of arms control measures to stabilise nuclear competition.

Both sides have also been able to learn from the Cold War experience, and have highly disciplined and well-trained military personnel in nuclear weapons roles.

Moreover, considerable bilateral dialogue at many levels continues behind the scenes even at the height of rhetorical hostility. "
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
13:48 / 29.05.02
Oh, well that's good. You can see how much I have payed attention to the whole deal...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:39 / 29.05.02
Yes, but MM is right in the sense that, whereas the nuclear doctrines of the USSR and USA were very stringent and very well-defined - you basically knew what you could get away with (as a result of decades of not quite destroying the world, I guess....) - India and Pakistan seem to understand each other's doctrines, and their own, less well...

Also, it's an apposite point that the US and USSR had very long-range missiles, and thus it would be extremely unlikely that they would face a situation where a junior commander with severed communication lines to his command found himself in a "use it or lose it" situation...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:16 / 30.05.02
Personally, I think no matter how "limited", it's kind of a step over the line... if you could drop a nuke, even if nobody died (yes, a ludicrous concept but used for the sake of argument), it would change the rules for ever. 57 years of international sabre-rattling, and nobody's actually fired the fuckers in anger since.
Let's hope it stays that way.
Hope seems to be in short supply right now, though.
 
 
bio k9
19:07 / 30.05.02
My biggest fear is that lil George learned from his fathers mistakes and will start another little invasion just before elections and get swept back into office on a wave of "patriotism". And he'll drop the bomb near the end of his second term.

I can't imagine anyone else actually using a nuke. Not until the US drops a tiny bunker busting one in Iraq. Then, as others have mentioned, its a free for all.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:17 / 31.05.02
Could the problem be that the true effect of the use of nuclear weapons is hard to picture? Most people can rattle off the standard list of short and long term effects (blast damage/fallout/blinding flash/EMP etc), but there's a fundamental difference between knowing and understanding, cold fact and live footage. I don't remember seeing much footage from Hiroshima/Nagasaki myself, so the only mental image I've got is the sterilised Hollywood stuff.

I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but I think if two relatively 'neutral' states start lobbing nukes at eachother the inevitable ground-zero footage and documentaries and "expert analysis" will wake up a lot of people. Same way 9/11 woke up America to terrorism, though hopefully in a rather more constructive way.

Although I do share Bio K9's concern with Dubya 'justifying' use of a small nuke on an enemy, which may well change the rules in a truly horrible way.
 
 
netbanshee
14:44 / 31.05.02
...what I'm curious about to is the attitudes of the civilians in these countries. Is there protesting or any other ruckus? Do they feel in any way a part of this conflict? It seems like an ideological conflict between the governments and militaries in these areas, but what about the people? I mean, it's awful that some people are dying in small "terrorist" actions but to step up to the possibility of nuclear war will solve what exactly? Are the resources in Kashmir that worthy of the possibility of the deaths of millions? Seems like a big prick waving event to me.

Insights?
 
 
SMS
15:59 / 31.05.02
From what I've heard, Kashmir is one of the few things the people of India agree upon. They have a very fractured country, but a political leader can get the ciizens to rally behind him over Kashmir. I've heard this third hand, so I may be a bit off.
 
 
cusm
16:41 / 31.05.02
You know, its very funny that the most likely thing to stop these kids from nuking each other is actually China threathening to spank the both of them if they make a mess in China'a back yard. For once, a "superpower" getting involved for the right reasons. Well, even if they are actually still selfish ones at the root of it.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
17:49 / 12.09.04
" Pakistan today is in the vortex of three perfect storms: the clash between radical Islam and the West (more accurately the United States); the rise of stateless groups, mostly Islamic today but could take any other form tomorrow or the day after; and the economic rise of two large Asian powers, China and India."
 
 
flufeemunk effluvia
19:03 / 12.09.04
'Splodey.

One thing that has always pissed me off about neocon rhetoric is how they always talk about toppling dictators, but they really only mean the ones that don't support America. Musharraf is President Musharraf, because Pakistan is, of course, an economic friend.
 
 
sleazenation
21:24 / 12.09.04
I don't think it's so much that Musharraf is an economic friend of the US that he is still in power, more that he is a strategic allie. Remember the war on Afghanistan? Pakistan shares a big land border with Afghanistan and it also has a number of ports. Those two factors were very important to the US when planning to enter and continuing to maintain their presence in Afghanistan.

And that's before we even get onto the fact that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan's economy is not insignificant, but it has far more key charaicteristcs as far as the US is concerned.
 
 
sleazenation
22:04 / 12.09.04
One thing that has always pissed me off about neocon rhetoric is how they always talk about toppling dictators, but they really only mean the ones that don't support America

Its not so much the turning of a blind eye to pro-US dictators that concerns me as much as active lack of support for democracies that are less than pro-US - witness the lack of a swift condemnation from the US when an attempted coup threatened to remove the democratically elected Hugo Chavez (a man whose policies are more left-wing than many in the US would like) from power [link].

To an extent it is understandable that the US might want to see regimes that are friendlier to their policies in power regardless of weither they are democracies or other systems of government. However, I'd suggest it behooves any country that is promoting the 'freedom' of democracy to support democracy freely, rather than focusing on its own national interest...
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
17:54 / 22.09.06
General Pervez Musharraf had told CBS television that Richard Armitage, assistant secretary of state, made the threat, "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age", in conversations with Pakistan's intelligence director after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Sept. 22, 2006 The Guardian

What is the President-General of Pakistan up to? We supported the USA because we were forced to? Is he appeasing the militant Islamic groups involved in Kashmir and Afghanistan? Or something else?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
20:35 / 22.09.06
What is the President-General of Pakistan up to? We supported the USA because we were forced to? Is he appeasing the militant Islamic groups involved in Kashmir and Afghanistan? Or something else?

That was certainly how I read it. It's interesting that the alleged threat was made by third parties; Musharraf is merely relaying the threat and Bush is claiming ignorance; the leaders are distanced from it, while still allowing the signal to be sent that Pakistan's government are maybe really opposed to the US. It's hardly going to generate more anti-American feeling, Musharraf's interests are served and through them, American interests.

(edit)

On the original threadline: although the Pakistan/India situation seems to've calmed down a lot, there's the disturbing possibility of an Israel / Shia Iran / Sunni Pakistan / India / China / North Korea arc of largely mutually hostile nuclear weapon states in the nearish future. Stick 'em all together and they might even equal a tenth of the US arsenal. This might just be a real good time to start some sodding disarmament and set a proper example.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:48 / 22.09.06
Hang on... the Pakistani intelligence services are top-to-bottom infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathisers, aren't they? I mean, is that news? Am I wrong? It's what I learned at my father's knee...
 
 
Slate
00:49 / 24.09.06

...what I'm curious about to is the attitudes of the civilians in these countries. Is there protesting or any other ruckus? Do they feel in any way a part of this conflict? It seems like an ideological conflict between the governments and militaries in these areas, but what about the people? I mean, it's awful that some people are dying in small "terrorist" actions but to step up to the possibility of nuclear war will solve what exactly? Are the resources in Kashmir that worthy of the possibility of the deaths of millions? Seems like a big prick waving event to me.

Insights?

I have a few Banshee, I have spent about 10 months on and off in India over the last 2 years and my father has spent about 12 months in Pakistan. I am on my way home now actually from a 3 weeks stint covering a few Northern Indian states, Gugarat, Uttar Ranchal and Assam. In Jorhat, Assam on friday night I drank a nervous "toast" with several Indian Government employees and one noted politition to the news(?) that America was going to Invade Pakistan. I immediately asked for their sources, my internet access has been really limited and the screen packed it in on my laptop so my personal web browsing has taken a big hit lately. I can't find any and am wondering what the hell they were on about? I have a heap of Indian newspapers that I have been collecting throughout my journey too to digest properly when I get home.

There have been several clashes in India between Muslim and Hindu factions, and it's not letting up either. I honestly believe it will get worse. I had to leave Jorhat in June for 5 days, as word got out to ULFA and Naxalite rebels that there were westeners in town and we were prime targets for kidnapping, in aid to get extortion funds for political campaigns. We were OK, but on further questioning of the status there, I found it is so fragmented and complex in India with caste playing a huge role in what goes on there it is hard to take in at once to get a good idea of the whole India/Pakistan situation. I don't think British can be entirely blamed, Hindu nationalism in the guise of the BJP and RSS are stirring things up on many levels. The Indo/Pak situation is used as political leverage sure, scaremongering yes. It has calmed down a little in Jammu/Kashmir but the sectarial violence is moving south, to Delhi, Mumbai, Varanasi, more cities to be hit soon I suspect. When I finally get home and get a few things sorted I will come back and address your questions as best I can & share a few comments from people I talked to regarding the conflict. It is one to watch, seriously.
 
 
Not in the Face
07:22 / 26.09.06
Hang on... the Pakistani intelligence services are top-to-bottom infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathisers, aren't they? I mean, is that news? Am I wrong? It's what I learned at my father's knee...

I thought it was the other way round?

And Suitcase Rider - thanks for the insight. I know very little about India other than what is generally reported, which tends to be sectarian violence and out-sourcing. Do you think this particular wave of sectarian violence is reaching some sort of tipping point? I mean the numbers of people involved are huge - Wikipedia indicates that the 2001 census gave a population of 174 million Muslims in India - and yet they constitute only 16% of India's population. I know that from small causes massive changes can happen, but presumably it requires the situation to be at some level of tension or anxiety to trigger conflict.
 
 
Spaniel
14:23 / 27.09.06
I seem to remember hearing on the news that the majority of people in India and Pakistan had (and possibly still have) no appreciation of the full horror of nuclear conflict, and tend to think of nuclear weapons as simply big bombs.
As far as I can recall, the explanation given had something to do with an underdeveloped media presence and communications network in both countries during the Cold War, and a lack of emphasis on the threat of nuclear weapons by what media there was during that time.

Any idea if that's true?

(Oh, Suitcase, I'm sure you do have something interesting and informative to say on this topic, but so far you haven't said it)
 
 
Slate
05:31 / 29.09.06
It's taken me a while to get through unpacking/moving house etc. I am back at work with limited computer access for a few days before I head off again, so I will try to give a few more insights.

I have been leafing through the mountain of media I bought back with me, much of it from around September 11. The news media from India at that time is loaded with thin references to Pakistan exteremists in conjunction with September 11 rememberances. I was not sure if this was mere "co-incidence" or the Indian editors wanted to skew public opinion through guilt by association? There was one spreadsheet dated September 10th called "The Pak Connection" which gave detailed accounts of pretty much all major terrorist claimed attacks throughout the Middle East and Asia for the last 5 years and each one provided bright clear connections with Pakistani militant groups for the reader to see. Any day of the week really you can find some story in the Indian media about Pakistan. Here is today's Pak Story.

I have talked informally with people I have been working with regarding the Nuclear situation, and most if not all people are for India having Nuclear weapons, as a deterrent only, keeping in mind that most people I worked with are all degree educated. As for the peasant villager who learns by word of mouth, I don't think he/she would have a real good idea as to what the ramifications would be from pressing the button on Nuclear War to either country. The pessemistic streak in me thinks that the populations general ignorance plays a large role in keeping the status quo and not just for this Nuclear issue, but perhaps for every issue on the table from poverty to sporting broadcast rights all the way to their fledgling Space Program.

A hungry person can't fill a stomach and live on national pride alone. It seems more and more to me that India accepts these levels of poverty and massive social economic differences as a fact of life, which has much to do with the caste system and it's treatment of individuals from prescribed birth rights.

An interesting fact about India, there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan, and Pakistan is over 95% Muslim. The 2 religions have been living side by side since the Muslim religion came to India in the 5th Century.

On the whole it's my opinion that Hindu practices are very tolerant of other religions from what I have observed. But I can't help thinking that the Malegaon bombings were a Hindu reprisal for the Mumbai Train Blasts? There was also the Delhi Bazaar Blasts that happened before this latest round of terror attacks so we appear get into this spiralling cycle of vengence with no clear start and no clear end. From my limited time in the country, all I have witnessed is an escalation of the numbers of people dead and the raising of the profile of the area of attacks ie. train stations, packed Mosques/markets etc.

One thing I can say is that most Indians on, around and below the poverty line(which is very subjective in itself) just want to get on with life and earn enough rupees to put food in their belly. With so much government corruption throughout the system these rebel groups provide a lifeline to villages with little or no state support. The support comes in the form of live animals like goats, vehicles and sometimes money. This is happening all across India right now, with the Maoists and Naxalites spreading deeper into central India which will pose problems once critical mass for change is reached. Not in the face mentioned a tipping point and I believe this may happen within India itself regarding Indian issues encompassing religion also, but the thought of a real Nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India is further off. For now I would call it old fashioned sabre rattling, but these sabres I hope, are ones to be left in their hilts. It is a huge step up to Nuclear War and that is why I think the tit for tat retaliations will continue unfortunately.

The IPCS is a good resource for more information on the patterns of violence going through the areas I have mentioned.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply