PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

India versus Pakistan watch

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4703
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:11 pm    Post subject: India versus Pakistan watch Reply with quote

Given the rising tensions I thought it would be sensible to set this up.

The chances of full scale war is unlikely but worth keeping a standing brief in case things escalate.

https://www.ianwelsh.net/india-and-pakistan-trade-air-strikes/

Quote:
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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7230
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5267
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7230
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8083

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
Neither the UK nor the USA is significantly reliant on India or Pakistan for food or fuel.

No, but even a modest nuclear exchange in the region has significant global impacts on agriculture through reduced insolation.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 920
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless we stockpile compost and drop it in the Sahara when the cold arrives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7230
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4703
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/02/iper-m02.html

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8083

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/02/iper-m02.html

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.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5267
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1810

PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

India has revoked the autonomy of both Kashmir and Jammu - Moon of Alabama opines that India will come to regret this de facto annexation
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7014
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group