There’s always risk when nuclear powers start playing tit-for-tat games. Pakistan, in particular, knows that it is weaker and their nuclear doctrine recognizes that only deterrence stops the Indians from defeating them in a conventional war.
Still, the most likely outcome is some more escalation and then de-escalation once the political benefits of sabre-rattling are sufficient.
Let’s hope that is the case.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
It will probably end with nothing worse than ritual name calling, shooting down the odd aircraft, and some light cross border shelling.
There is a small chance that it will get out of hand, followed by whichever side is otherwise loosing then resorting to a nuke.
A limited nuclear exchange in a distant region upon which we are not particularly dependant, might not be that serious in itself.
It would however set an exceedingly dangerous precedent and greatly increase the risks of future local conflicts turning nuclear.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
adam2 wrote:It will probably end with nothing worse than ritual name calling, shooting down the odd aircraft, and some light cross border shelling.
There is a small chance that it will get out of hand, followed by whichever side is otherwise loosing then resorting to a nuke.
A limited nuclear exchange in a distant region upon which we are not particularly dependant, might not be that serious in itself.
It would however set an exceedingly dangerous precedent and greatly increase the risks of future local conflicts turning nuclear.
That shows an alarming ignorance of the consequences of any nuclear exchange both to the participants and to any countries or their people that happen to be down wind of the blasts.
I should perhaps have said "would not be that serious for the UK"
The consequences for those countries involved, or immediately downwind, would indeed be most serious.
Neither the UK nor the USA is significantly reliant on India or Pakistan for food or fuel.
Any use of nuclear weapons would still be setting a very dangerous precedent indeed.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Peace seems to have broken out, or at least an uneasy armed truce, rather than fighting.
A good chance for both lots to re-arm, re-train and prepare for the next round.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would not only kill tens of millions in South Asia. A 2008 simulation conducted by scientists who in the 1980s alerted the world to the threat of “nuclear winter� determined that the detonation of a hundred Hiroshima-scale nuclear weapons in an Indo-Pakistani war would, due to the destruction of large cities, inject so much smoke and ash into the upper atmosphere as to trigger a global agricultural collapse. This, they predicted, would lead to a billion deaths in the months that followed South Asia’s “limited� nuclear war.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would not only kill tens of millions in South Asia. A 2008 simulation conducted by scientists who in the 1980s alerted the world to the threat of “nuclear winter� determined that the detonation of a hundred Hiroshima-scale nuclear weapons in an Indo-Pakistani war would, due to the destruction of large cities, inject so much smoke and ash into the upper atmosphere as to trigger a global agricultural collapse. This, they predicted, would lead to a billion deaths in the months that followed South Asia’s “limited� nuclear war.
I was at a conference in Vienna in 2013 and one of the papers (by P. Weihs and A. Robock) explained how a 50 nuclear bomb war between India and Pakistan would cause global cooling of ~1.5 C for a decade and devastate agriculture.
Does either side have fifty or a hundred weapons ready to deploy? And if they did are there fifty or a hundred targets to blow up? I'd think that one missile aimed at each capital city would be enough.
Edit to add: After looking it up the answer to the first question is yes they both have over a hundred weapons.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
adam2 wrote:It will probably end with nothing worse than ritual name calling, shooting down the odd aircraft, and some light cross border shelling.
There is a small chance that it will get out of hand, followed by whichever side is otherwise loosing then resorting to a nuke.
A limited nuclear exchange in a distant region upon which we are not particularly dependant, might not be that serious in itself.
It would however set an exceedingly dangerous precedent and greatly increase the risks of future local conflicts turning nuclear.
I think the reverse, to be honest. It would put the fear of God into the rest of the world that it should not get out of hand and so would diminish the probability of escalation. At least in nuclear terms.
Put it this way - if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not happened, do you think it would have been more or less likely that a global nuclear exchange would have happened in the intervening years between then and now? I think it would have been overwhelmingly more likely.
