7 ms·
Indian Jets Strike on Pakistani Side of Kashmir Line
- sauravt 8y agoCountries with nuclear weapons should not go to war with each other.
- vkou 8y agoSmall, oil-strapped countries should also not start unwinnable wars against superpowers that have 2 times their population, 5 times their GDP, and 10 times their military industrial capacity. And yet, despite knowing that their cause was hopeless, and that the war would be unwinnable, the government of Imperial Japan knowingly committed suicide, by attacking the United States in 1941. This is one of the reasons I find the principles underpinning MAD to be fairy tales. In matters of war, belligerents do not behave rationally.
- yumraj 8y agoCountries should also not harbor and train and support terrorists that attack neighbors.
- Pharmakon 8y agoYou’re right, but avoiding nuclear war is the higher priority. If India and Pakistan want to kick the ahit out of each other they should disarm their nuclear weapons. Imagine for a moment that Russia had been sending terrorist to the US border with Canada. Now imagine that the US started bombing Russian border towns. You would quite rightly, be crappping your pants and focusing on the threat of global annihilation. Nuclear powers are burdened with a far greater need for restraint out of necessity than non-nuclear powers, even in the face of provocation.
- Pharmakon 8y agoThis would be a very stupid reason to jumpstart an apocalypse. You’d really hope nuclear armed neighbors would have more restraint.
- hereiskkb 8y agoHa ha. Restraint is not an option when 50+ soldiers of said country get suicide bombed by a terrorist group known to be residing with impunity and immunity in the other said country. At this point, it's a wonder it's not all out war.
- vkou 8y agoHow many people are you willing to kill (On your side, or the other side), over a terrorist act that claimed the lives of fifty soldiers? Fifty? Five hundred? Five hundred million? As many as it takes? Or is there a limit? What if the conflict kills five hundred people on your side, and fifty on theirs? Do you also consider that a good exchange?
- yumraj 8y agoAs many as it takes to either make Pakistan change its course or the terrorists are wiped out. Everyone who was killed in this attack was willing to die to kill innocent Indians, civilians included. So, from that standpoint it is a completely justified attack.
- rmist 8y agoWhy does one have to kill people from one side or the other? The strike was done on the terrorists which in this case happen to be on Pakistan side. Terrorism isn't going away itself. One or both the nations need to take action on them.
- Pharmakon 8y agoOf course it’s an option, when the alternative is a potential nuclear holocaust. I’m not denying that Pakistan makes for a miserable neighbor, just that limited engagements with limited casualties are preferable to risking nuclear war.
- yumraj 8y agoThere has been limited engagement for last 70+ years with no result. As Einstein said, lunacy is doing the same thing again and again and expect a different result.
- techie128 8y agoNYT's anti-India bias is showing. That said, this was expected. India's diplomacy and restraint has been tested time and time again. It has taken a page from Israel, US & Russia's book. India is only cleaning up the mess that Pakistan should've cleared on its side of the border.
- vkou 8y agoI know nothing about the situation, so what you say may well be true, despite the assurances of Pakistan to the contrary. However, it may also well be false, despite the assurances of India to the contrary. I do know that if this escalates into a 'real' war, or, heaven forbid, a nuclear exchange, between the two countries, then the question of whether or not this attack was justified will be completely irrelevant.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- godelmachine 8y agoWe Indian's are fed up of Pakistan's nuclear deterrence. Paki's don't let us live in peace, they harbor the most dangerous of terrorists (Don't forget Osama bin Laden so soon), and they don't wanna give up the thought of terrorizing India. It's high time these air strikes were conducted. They had it coming. We made sure no civilians were killed. Only those terrorists.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DSingularity 8y agoAnd you are proud of this? Shame.
- l1feh4ck 8y agoI am very proud of this. And there is nothing to be ashamed of. India did not attack any civilians or military base, It attacked terrorist training camps. The attack was on an area 50Km after LOC(line of control) which is a part of Kashmir currently occupied by Pakistan. On Feb 14th 44 Indian reserve police were killed in a bomb attack made by the same pakisthan based Jihadi terroriest organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed. I think this is a major action against terror from India.
- 19f191ty 8y agoI'd advise everyone to wait until it's confirmed. The fake news problem in India is at another level.
- yumraj 8y agoIt was reported by Pakistan that this had happened, before Indian media had reported.
- 19f191ty 8y agoWhat happened exactly? Nobody's arguing that Indian planes crossed the LoC. But did they really bomb all the terrorist camps? Were the terrorists really killed? Were there really no civilian casualties? How do we know? In fact, how do they know? No source outside Indian media hasn't confirmed these details. Not just that, the Indian media itself hasn't provided evidence to back these claims
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JackPoach 8y agoThanks god there are no casualties.
- yumraj 8y agoWell, according to Indian media 200-300 terrorists were killed. Of course Pakistan says no one was killed.
- l1feh4ck 8y agoI don't understand why to thank god for that. Pakisthan have denied the existence of such terrorist organisation even though the last surgical strick from India killed over 50 jihadis who were trained to attack India. The attack was done by 12 mirage aircraft carrying bombs weighing over 1000kgs. This have a destructive radius over 15 kms. The Indian intel and the state is claming that there is anywhere beteen 300-400 Jihadis killed in this attack. Major strike on terror from Indian side.
- JackPoach 8y agoIt's a figure of speech. I am an atheist.
- yumraj 8y agoNote: This is not random attack by India. This was in response to an attack 2 weeks ago by Pakistani terrorists in India which had killed 40+ security personnel. Moreover this was an attack on terrorist camps in hilly/mountaineous terrain.
- throwawaysea 8y agoAfter a history of the Pakistani government letting terrorists operate/organize within its borders, one can’t be surprised that India has grown tired of the nuclear deterrent preventing them from making progress in curbing attacks in India from Pakistani terror groups. I agree the situation should be handled delicately, and hopefully diplomatically, to a mutually-agreeable outcome. At the same time, continuing to rely on the Pakistani government to make progress here would be foolish given their poor track record in dealing with domestic terror groups. After all, America acted unilaterally in the hunt for Osama bin Laden because the Pakistani government was unreliable. To this day many sources allege the direct involvement of many Pakistani officials in harboring OBL (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/14/pakistani-leaders-knew-osama-bin-laden-was-in-pakistan-says-former-defense-minister/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/14...).
- ediosync 8y agoDespite Hiroshima-Nagasaki example, I am appalled that two very big and close nuclear neighbours are escalating issues instead of doing diplomatic talks.
- rraghur 8y agoI read elsewhere that this might very well be with tacit agreement from Pak * India bombs terror camps and can show it's retaliation for the suicide attack. * Pak has always denied existence of the camps - so of course they 'missed' and bombed empty ground. Helps them save face internally.
- wickrom 8y agoI wonder why this news is worthy of being discussed on HN?
- amriksohata 8y agoBecause 2 nuclear powers are going at each other
- throwawayzkfg 8y agoThis is highly irresponsible with the possibility of escalation of hostilities between the nuclear armed neighbors. As some one rightly pointed out nuclear powers carry the additional burden of restraint.
- varunpant 8y agoYeah well, next time travel to Pakistan and try explaining "responsibilities" and "world peace" to them. I would love to observe that conversation.
- throwawayzkfg 8y agoAnd this potential for escalation does not bother you?
- amingilani 8y agoHonestly, with intense warmongering and politics being broadcast 24/7 in my country, I come to HN to discuss better than what one zealot wants to do to another. I already woke up to the news that India had crossed the border, felt sad, decided to browse HN for intellectually stimulating debate and found this instead. Let's please stick to hacker-friendly content? This stuff will just invites a flamewar, and we've got enough war talk happening in the real world.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- l1feh4ck 8y agoIts a war on terror. Not a war against a particular country. It is better not to have such a debate in HN. #PMKB
- amingilani 8y agoNote: #PMKB is a trending hashtag based on a video[0] where a kid says "Pakistan (ki) ma ka bhosda" which translates to "Pakistan's mother vagina", or more loosely, to "fuck Pakistan's mom".[1] I never thought I'd see something like this on HN, but there's a first time for everything. [0]: https://twitter.com/neeraj21345/status/1097583981304852483 https://twitter.com/neeraj21345/status/1097583981304852483 [1]: This citation translates it incorrectly, but I speak the language. It still corroborates the gist of the content. https://twitter.com/neeraj21345/status/1097585602365542400 https://twitter.com/neeraj21345/status/1097585602365542400
- l1feh4ck 8y agoWhen 1.2 Billion people are saying to Pakistan to stop supporting the terrorist and to stop providing them safe heavens, they are denying that there is no terrorist in Pakistan despite the fact that Osama Bin Ladan was captured and killed on their grounds and numerous other terrorist organisations broadcasting terror from their base in Pakistan. India has always been a country that has never attacked any country first. The current government came in to power saying that they will fight the war on terror. And when they do it all the Indians are with them irrespective of the religion or political ideologies. #PMKB is a hashtag trending in the social media which literally translate it to the above-mentioned meaning. It is the rage against terror.
- mhq 8y agoA fool's election winning strategy is putting more than a few billion people at risk of nuclear apocalypse! Note that the Pakistani analysts predicted this a long time ago (Indian opposition parties also understand this) that the Indian PM Modi would create a war like situation with Pakistan before their upcoming elections.
- mhq 8y agoExample: https://twitter.com/AsharJawad/status/1072387135485943808 https://twitter.com/AsharJawad/status/1072387135485943808 "After BJP defeat in state elections & Pakistan's masterstroke in Kartarpur, Indian estab. is on backfoot. Don't rule out false flags in Kashmir & India (esp. INC ruled Punjab) followed by border skirmishes with Pak to revive Hindutva nationalism ahead of 2019 G.E. Ram Mandir too."
- amriksohata 8y agoOh dear the ISI machine is out :D
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mhq 8y agoExample 2: Here is an Indian who predicted the same 2 years back "A serious thought - is BJP planning a war like situation with Pakistan just before next parliamentary election to win absolute majority?" https://twitter.com/t_d_h_nair/status/1100274052617392128 https://twitter.com/t_d_h_nair/status/1100274052617392128
- niteshade 8y agoHey dang, there's some problematic comments[1][2] in here from godelmachine. As far as I'm aware (and at the very least in the UK), calling someone a "paki" is a slur. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19254972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19254972 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19255009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19255009