5 ms·
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire
- presscast 8y agoSeems interesting, but I got paywalled. :(
- mzybert 8y agoDisabling JS did the trick for me.
- godelmachine 8y agoFirefox Focus if you are using a Smartphone
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ghnm 8y agoIndia and Pakistan are like two chimpanzees hurling turds at each other in a cage of a zoo. Really cute. I wonder if it's ever going to end, though.
- phailhaus 8y agoOne of the chimpanzees directly supports terrorist groups that kills the other, and both are nuclear-armed. I feel like you're talking with complete ignorance of the situation. To call the situation "really cute" is horrible.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nnmgm 8y agoWhat I meant is that they are two shitholes who have been engaged in a petty, boring dispute so they can ignore their real problems.
- prudhvis 8y agoIndia isn't playing with fire. India has a clear no first use policy.
- _jgdh 8y agoIndia is playing with fire because Pakistan doesn't have such a policy. If the situation appears dire for Pakistan, the Pakistani Army could resort to using tactical nukes.
- writepub 8y agoAh! So for Pakistan to be "playing with fire", India would merely need to withdraw it's stated "no first use of nukes" policy? All you're doing is legitimizing a rouge state's rouge excuses for threats of nuclear war. Pakistani army has NO excuse to use nuclear weapons, unless they've been at the receiving end of a nuclear attack
- merpnderp 8y agoI don't get this article. Pakistan's reprehensible support for terrorism started this conflict, but it's all Mr. Modi's fault because they don't like his politics?
- devoply 8y agoSome non state actors started the conflict, and India decided to make it an official conflict. State actors can't really treat these non-conventional forces as extensions of the military of other countries and retaliate against them. Well they can but then they risk starting wars. Often these non-state actors do whatever they want on their own, despite their handlers telling them not to do something. If these two countries do go to war it's likely that both will suffer heavily because of it -- Pakistan may not survive but India may be badly damaged. With all the economic issues these countries have they should really avoid getting into something like war.
- writepub 8y agoWhat a convenient non-argument. Would you term Pakistan's willful hiding of Osama Bin Laden [1] as state policy, or attribute it to non-state actors? Now, imagine if Pakistan neighbored the US, and not only hid, but provided financial, logistical and strategic support to a million Osamas, who constantly kill Americans. And on top of that, imagine Pakistan bestowing a "freedom-fighter" label on Osama. Would you consider that an act of the state, in aggregate? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_support_system_...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoOne thing that may have changed the calculus for India being more aggressive in it's bombing is that US backing of Pakistan in a conflict with India is no longer a given. Given the covert if not overt Pakistani support for Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, as well as that Bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan, I doubt there is any substantial support in the US population for Pakistan over against India. Many Americans have a much higher affinity toward India (world's largest democracy, a modernizing economy, home to many tech companies) and than toward Pakistan. In addition, it seems that Modi and Trump have a much better relationship, and probably have a similar view of the world, than Trump and Pakistan's president.
- SlipperySlope 8y agoYeah, the US military is probably pulling for those Indian Mig-21s to shoot down lots of Pak F-16s. Shows how wrong we got that one decades ago. And where did N.Korea get its nukes? Worst that could happen is that Pak loses track of one of those nukes they keep moving around and jihadis get it.
- writepub 8y agoYes indeed! India should pay heed to an opinion hit-piece authored by a citizen of the West with no connection to on-the-ground reality in Indian Kashmir, or India. The truth is patently simple: Pakistan's ISI (it's version of CIA) provides direct financial, logistic, and strategic cover for terrorists who target and kill Indians, routinely. How exactly does any country deal with this? I don't remember the economist publishing outrage over US' take-out of Osama Bin Laden, what's different here? Is it that the victim country differs from the author's home?
- ziyadparekh 8y agoThe truth isnt as simple as you make it out to be. Pakistan was just handed into the control of a new government which seems to be taking a proactive stand with popular measures coming into play. India is entering into election terms which could be the reason these tensions are escalating. Both countries using this to further their own political agendas. India crossed the Line of Control, Pakistan shot down and captured pilots. And just announced the release of said pilot(s). It seems that Pakistan has no interest in playing with fire, although they are confident in dealing with any threat that comes their way. Indias current government seems more interested in playing this game and spurring nationalistic fervor since that particular regime has a very real interest in getting reelected. Both countries have intelligence agencies that probably fund terrorist camps. So blaming just one country is highly misguided. But yes i agree with you, its very easy for outsiders to cheaply throw words in an article without deeply researching whats actually happening.
- Bhilai 8y agoTo refresh your memory, 40 Indian soldiers were killed in Kashmir. Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for this attack and is known to be based out of Pakistan. So blaming Pakistan is not misguided at all.
- worldexplorer 8y agoThis is new- 'India has terrorist camps' lol. Your own foreign minister admits terrorist Masood Azhar live in Pakistan(whose brother hijacked Indian plane which everyone in the world knows).
- UnpossibleJim 8y agoI know this won't happen (well, I'm fairly positive, I should say), but what is foreign response if two, close set nations, such as India and Pakistan should choose to use a nuclear option on each other. Or North Korea and South Korea. Not on anyone else, but just on each other. I realize this is a bit of a naive question, before the criticisms come in, but I'm more curious about answers rather than insults, if you don't mind.
- merpnderp 8y agoThe Korean Peninsula conflict is different. The US keeps soldiers there to make sure that any conflict started by N. Korea is also an explicit attack on the US. So nuking US soldiers would likely mean getting nuked in return. On a side note, this agreement is likely all that keeps S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan from deploying their own nuclear weapons.
- yodon 8y agoThe key is to read up on something called "Nuclear Winter". The impact of the next nuclear conflict is likely to be felt much more broadly than just across a single border.
- merpnderp 8y agoA few dozen air bursts over India and Pakistan would not start any sort of nuclear winter. It would kill hundreds of millions directly and indirectly and crush the global economy, and cause immeasurable suffering. But global temps would likely be barely affected.
- noir_lord 8y agoThey'd both be pariahs for a considerable amount of time (decades possibly), in fact from a global point of view it might actually be better to not fire back after a limited (theatre) level attack, your opponent would destroy any credibility they had entirely. Just the optics of the US or EU doing business with a country that lobbed a nuke at a democracy (I'm assuming it's Pakistan that fires in this scenario because honestly that is the more likely first strike, India has a firmly stated policy of no first use). The Pakistani system is considerably more fractured and much less under control with almost parallel systems of government between the military leaders and civilian leaders. They are pretty much the worst case scenario after NK having nukes and in some ways worse, NK doesn't have an ongoing relationship with religious fundamentalists at every level.
- amriksohata 8y agoThis article totally misses the point, election or no election, any Indian (or non Indian) government would have to respond to 40 of its army men being killed by a terrorist group that gets sanctuary in Pakistan. Pakistan is known to have played a double game with the US too, removing terrorists that are anti-Pakistani but supporting terrorists that support the Pakistani expansionist agenda into Kashmir
- mhq 8y agoWho could benefit from that terrorist attack? Answer. BJP and Indian PM Modi. India has 700,000 army persons in a small valley of Kashmir. Their intelligence service (R&W) has infiltrated all the terrorist orgs in Kashmir and conducts such bomb blasts for political gains whenever required. Modi required right-wing votes so required war-hysteria and jingoism which lead to all this situation.
- amriksohata 8y agoLol this is utter fantasy land, only an ISI agent would make such pantomime up