It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Pakistani Official: Any War With India Would Escalate

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

A nameless Pakistani Defense Official has said at a think tank in Washington that any conflict with India would escalate into a full-scale war and end with a nuclear exchange. India has recently floated the idea of a conventional war to "put down" insurgents in the disputed Kashmir region.
 



interestalert .com
No conventional war between India and Pakistan will remain limited for long and will gradually lead to a full-scale war and ultimately to a nuclear conflict, warns a study by a Pakistani defense official.

The study, presented recently at a Washington think-tank, looks at various scenarios that could lead to an all-out war between the two South Asian neighbors, which conducted a series of nuclear tests in May 1998 and also possess nuclear-capable missiles.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947 and are still engaged in 57-year-old conflict in the Himalayan valley of Kashmir which caused two of these three wars.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Pakistan and India have fought three wars since their independance in 1947, two of which were over Kashmir. There are continuing skirmishes being fought in there today. If any wars were to start between these two nations Kashmir would be the cause.

Disputed areas of Kashmir:


Related News Links:
www.hrw.org
news.bbc.co.uk
www.paknews.com


[edit on (12/18/0404 by PistolPete]




posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
In other words, Pakistan to India: "give us what we want or we'll nuke you."

And Pakistan has given nukes to North Korea, so now they can say the same to Japan and the U.S.

America should feel grateful for allies like Pakistan.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This is nothing new, ever since the military coup, Pakistan has been rattling the nuclear chain. I personally think India should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against it's nuclear weapons as Pakistan probably does not have 2nd strike capability. However, that would probably provoke war with China.

How do you deal with a fanatical neighbour with nuclear weapons in such circumstances?



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Can we just get on with it and start WW3 already? Im bored and need some exciting to happen.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
"Give us what we want...."
"Pakistan has been rattling the nuclear chain...."
"WW3 already...."

Amazing that all this can be gleaned from this article.
Personally, it seems to me that the Pakistani's are admitting what the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. realized: M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction).
I guess everyone missed this recent tidbit of information?
Pakistan and India to start nuclear hotline, no deal on missile tests

You see, the issue isn't who is rattling the nuclear chain, for both sides have adequately been doing that.
Its not that Pakistan is 'holding' India up and saying, "Give us what we want or else."
It's not that WW3 is fast approaching.

It's the mere fact or realization, the realization that if Pakistan and India decided to take off the kid gloves, and things got beyond control, that the inevitable would take place: that both would become a nuclear wasteland (remember: M.A.D.).

Thats what the article is indicating: realization.




seekerof



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Seekerof

Its nice to see some common sense thrown into the debate every now and then. It is almost a 100% sure thing that NO country is going to attack another with nukes, the retaliation would be to great and BOTH countries would suffer MUCH more than they could win.

Any nuke strike will almost surely come from a terrorist group because its kinda hard to nuke an Idea. I don't even think any country that would supply a terrorist group with one except MAYBE North Korea. No country is going to start WW3 because even if they won they would have lost most of there population and industrial base and would have won a radioactive slag heap. If it happened you are talking about BILLIONS dead, Nuclear winter, etc, Basically a few million who managed to survive the fallout, disease, famine, etc; living a medieval existence.

What country would consider this a victory?

Religious fanatics on BOTH sides, now THATS another story



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Amuk, Seekerof

You both have it right

MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) a stalemate, stasis, standoff.

How does a superpower break this stalemate, it allows proxies to possess the weapons causing the stalemate in the hope that one proxie will take out another proxie to a given superpowers advantage.

Unfortunately (Or fortunately) this did not work.

Russia gave or allowed China to have or steal its secrets as a counter to US strength.

The US allowed Isreal to have or steal its capablity in a crisis

China and Russia gave assistance to India and Iraq, The US to Pakistan, Israel to South Africa, Pakistan to Libya and Iran and so on and so forth............I may not have all the machivellian steps in order but you get the idea here.

Now all the cold war proxies are armed as well as the WW-II victors and its still MAD.

Now since the superpowers and their proxies cannot fight it out with nuclear weapons without either destoying one another or suffering the wrath of world opinion as the superpowers would if they retaliated to a proxies attack on one another or an opposing superpower individually - whats left in the quiver?

Amuk hit the proverbial nail on the head,

Its no longer nation-states attacking each other directly that is the worry, the worry is nation-states using useful idiots called "terrorist's" to carry out policy that under any other circumstances would be suicidal for a given nation.

Whom is using these useful idiots is up for conjecture - all I know is the chance for nuclear devastation is increased with every step downwards in the cycle.

What gets me is the fact that we all know its coming but nobody is willing to do the neccessary things to avoid it. Who among us will be amazed to hear a city went up in a nuclear conflagration next week? Few I believe!

Sad



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
This situation is quite different than the MADness of the Cold War. Neither of these countries have very powerful nuclear weapons. I realize that's an oxymoron. Some of the bombs they have are less powerful then the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - as small as 5 kilotons (Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, the US measures them in megatons). While they'd seriously fubar each others nation things would remain to rebuild from.

Also, a first strike could easily work here because the two countries border each other. A quick assault of the other countries nuclear facilities could render them quite incapable of retaliating - another difference between the Cold War.

Something else to think about:

India's Military Manpower: 172,153,371 million

Pakistans Military Manpower: 24,355,985 million

India has roughly 150 million more men aged 17-49 fit for military service than does Pakistan. In a large-scale conventional war they'd really have no hope except for a tactical nuclear stike to slow an onslaught of Indian soldiers. Some analysts believe that Pakistan would result to bombing Pakistani soil if the situation became dire enough.

A much different and scarier situation than the one faced between Russia and the US.

[edit on (12/19/0404 by PistolPete]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete


Also, a first strike could easily work here because the two countries border each other. A quick assault of the other countries nuclear facilities could render them quite incapable of retaliating - another difference between the Cold War.

Something else to think about:

India's Military Manpower: 172,153,371 million

Pakistans Military Manpower: 24,355,985 million

India has roughly 150 million more men aged 17-49 fit for military service than does Pakistan. In a large-scale conventional war they'd really have no hope except for a tactical nuclear stike to slow an onslaught of Indian soldiers. Some analysts believe that Pakistan would result to bombing Pakistani soil if the situation became dire enough.



So what do you suppose is stopping the Indians from carrying out their clear advantage - fear - fear of the consequences - fear of the unknown.




[edit on 19-12-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

America should feel grateful for allies like Pakistan.


The US is way closer allies with India then Pakistan if there was ever a conflict between the two the US would back India over Pakistan anyday.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Its only a matter of time. If not Pakistan/India, then some other dispute between opposing countries, or maybe a terrorist attack, will ignite it. If not an all out nuclear war, then at least enough of one to disrupt the balance of nature worldwide; maybe a nuclear winter for a time. Enough to cause millions of agonizing deaths. Once the Genies out of the bottle, and all that

When you think about it, we humans are probably living on borrowed time as it is. Considering the rate our technology is advancing, and our inability to control it wisely, its a fluke weve made it this far. With genetics advancing as it is, before long the chances of us self-destructing will be even greater. Which method of extinction do you prefer? Nuclear annihilation or Dooms Day virus?

Its as though were in a truck without brakes, barrelling down the mountain side faster and faster, rushing toward our date with destiny, and helpless to do anything about it. Major bummer



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The timing of this press release and the explicit mentino of escalation to nuclear warfare seems interesting given the fact that India has withdrawn thousands of troops in Kashmir.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I don't think Pakistan have MAD capability. I think India has far more nuclear weapons from 50-100kt; while Pakistan 5-10kt. India also has some ABM capability. So, I would think Pakistan does not have a credible deterant.

Hence, why I think India should launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, due to it's irresponsible threats, immature leaders, and likly poor nuclear command structure. Further, there is the threat of their weapons falling into the hands of fundamentalists.

However, I am sure India would also have to consider the China or even US factor to mount such an offensive. Which is why I said, what would you do, if you had a fanaticial nuclear neighbour in those circumstances.

Inaction, would only allow Pakistan to further build it's nuclear offensive capability and eventually a credible nucleat deterant. An overconfident Pakistan is not good for regional stability. I know if US or China was in such a situation, they would not stand for it. India tries too hard to be in everyones good books.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I don't think Pakistan have MAD capability. I think India has far more nuclear weapons from 50-100kt; while Pakistan 5-10kt. India also has some ABM capability. So, I would think Pakistan does not have a credible deterant.

Hence, why I think India should launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, due to it's irresponsible threats, immature leaders, and likly poor nuclear command structure. Further, there is the threat of their weapons falling into the hands of fundamentalists.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]


Man Indigo I'm glad you aren't my neighbor.

And what would all this death and carnage be over...Kashmir? A relatively useless mountian region. Or some fundamental argument between Muslims and Hinduism?

Geographically the two are neighbors and brothers of the sub-continent who just need to grow up a bit. In this day and age the time of borders is an obsolete concept. Anglos, Asians, Christens, Muslims, Corperations and terroists. We all breath the same air.

Edited for spelling

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Ikema]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   


The US is way closer allies with India then Pakistan if there was ever a conflict between the two the US would back India over Pakistan anyday.


please explain, i'm not so sure about that.

the pakistani isi remains under direct cia influence. also remember in the week leading up to 9/11 it just so happens isi chief general mahmoud had been meeting with major players at the pentagon, national security council, cia and foreign relation committee; including colin powell, richard armitage, marc grossman, cia director george tenet and joseph biden. while there, the money allegedly used to finance the 9/11 attacks, $100 000, was wired by pakistan's ahmad umar sheikh to the ringleader of the wtc hijackings mohammed atta under the insistence of isi chief general mahmoud. following the 9/11 attacks general mahmoud was there to pledge pakistan's support.

-raven



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

And what would all this death and carnage be over...Kashmir? A relatively useless mountian region. Or some fundamental argument between Muslims and Hinduism?


Kashmir is far from a useless mountain region. It is rich in resources, natural beauty and further is a corridor into Middle East. However, I am certainly not advocating this pre-emptive strike over territorial disputes or religion. That is fanaticism, and if you thought I insinuated that, I can understand why you would not want me as neigbour.

I am only suggesting this action as a defesive-aggressive political action against a fanatical state that blackmails with nuclear warfare. As of yet, Pakistan probably does not have a credible nuclear deterant against India. I am sure it could cripple India with it's existing nuclear warfare, but not destoy it. However, if action is not taken against a state that rattles the nuclear chains ever so often, it will eventually build a credible nuclear deterant that could destory India.

So given the extreme risk India faces from Pakistan's nuclear weapons, it would only be prudent of India to destroy it's nuclear manufacturing capability. Yes, I know, easier said than done.

US has taken pre-emptive action against Iraq and now on Iran. However, except here, it was not justified. However, in the case of India, it has every justification too, and if it does, US would have absolutely no right to intervene. Unfortunately, politics is a game of double speak and double standards.


Geographically the two are neighbors and brothers of the sub-continent who just need to grow up a bit. In this day and age the time of borders is an obsolete concept. Anglos, Asians, Christens, Muslims, Corperations and terroists. We all breath the same air.


I am pro United Earth too.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by raven2012


The US is way closer allies with India then Pakistan if there was ever a conflict between the two the US would back India over Pakistan anyday.


please explain, i'm not so sure about that.

-raven


Well there is much evidence to see the growing relationship between the US and India. First we have strong econmic ties far stronger then any with Pakistan.Thanks to the outsourcing of computer software development and especially information technology-enabled services such as call centers and medical transcription.

Four years ago, they exuberantly declared they were "natural allies," being two of the world's biggest democracies.

The U.S and India have recently held four major army and air force joint exercises, including one in Alaska and another in a cold desert in northwestern India. They are about to commence two major naval exercises off the Kerala coast, in which U.S. nuclear-propelled and nuclear-weapons-bearing warships are expected to participate. The two governments have been sharing intelligence with each other.

We dont have joint military exercises with Pakistan.

India is going to become a world power in the future The US is backing the winning horse between the two and its not Pakistan.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix


So what do you suppose is stopping the Indians from carrying out their clear advantage - fear - fear of the consequences - fear of the unknown.



Fear of the unknown. I personally don't think the leaders of either of these nations have any idea what might happen. Some people believe that this unknown is the deterrent that keeps both nations from going at it.



The capability estimates of these two nations vary. Some say Pakistan has more, some say India has more. While India did test a fusion (H) bomb of 60 kilotons I haven't seen anywhere that they possess fusion bombs in their arsenal.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   


India is going to become a world power in the future The US is backing the winning horse between the two and its not Pakistan.


that's true, it almost seems as though the US has and continues to use pakistan for short term goals, but is backing india in the the long term. that however might not work out if india commits to this russian/chinese/indian/brazialian alliance proposed by putin, and may be one reason the US continues to back pakistan as well:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-raven



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join