All-out war on the Subcontinent

— The Kolkata Libertarian believes that all-out nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a distinct possibility, for a number of reasons that he mentions. Among these: India does not possess the surgical-strike capabilities of the U.S., which means that it’s going to be an all-or-nothing set of scenarios when the two sides go to … Continue reading “All-out war on the Subcontinent”

The Kolkata Libertarian believes that all-out nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a distinct possibility, for a number of reasons that he mentions. Among these:

India does not possess the surgical-strike capabilities of the U.S., which means that it’s going to be an all-or-nothing set of scenarios when the two sides go to war. If the Indian military had the technological, logistical and operational means with which to wage a low-level offensive battle, they would have had it over with last December. Instead, they have resorted to the only available response – the threat of large-scale war on multiple fronts, followed by the inevitable tit-for-tat nuclear response.

We all like to think, here in the West, that nuclear war is too horrible for anyone but a madman to seriously contemplate. The pressures on Musharraf and the tensions within his country and between Pakistan and its neighbors are such that going completely crazy would be a short trip for the dude. The situation over there is much more serious that most Americans think, and much more serious than the situation in the Middle East. Colin Powell should forget about the Israelis and concentrate on averting tragedy on the Indian Subcontinent right now.

Incidentally, the reason that religious fanaticism is so strong in Pakistan has to do with national identity. This country was thrown together at the time of Indian independence as a payoff to Jinna for his role in the swaraj struggle (correction: to keep him from making trouble in India post-independence.) The name “Pakistan” combines an acronym made up of the three ethnic groups (Pashtun, Afghani, Kashmiri) with the Indo-European word for “land”, “stan.” The only common bond in Pakistan is Islam, which becomes fanatical when called upon to act as a national value system and not just something you do at the Mosque on Friday. It’s an old-timey creed, in other words.

9 thoughts on “All-out war on the Subcontinent”

  1. I’ve been wrong before — no doubt about that.

    But I’m sticking to my guns that the chance of nuclear war is still just one in five.

    If only because anything else is too fearsome to contemplate.

  2. Interesting analysis. Quite frightening. What strikes me about the India/Pakistan situation is not just the potential for horrible violence, but the difference in the way elite opinion worldwide treats India’s position on Kashmir and Israel’s position on a Palestinian state. They are similar situations. Israel has been a good deal more accomodating with the Palestinians than India has with the Muslim Kashmiris but has gotten little credit for it. Why isn’t Kofi Annan outraged at India’s treatment of the Kashmiris?

  3. I think the reason Jinna was given Pakistan was because Mountbatten (the last British viceroy) was convinced that the nation was going to break into a bloody civil war unless a solution was found, felt that he had little time and Jinna was the most stubborn of the power players as head of the Muslim league. Since he knew he couldn’t get Jinna to come around, he got Nehru and Patel to acquiesce. I think you are right about nuclear war being a greater threat than most in the west realize for a couple of reasons. I was in New Delhi a couple of weeks after 911 and the tensions are very, very high-I would say the rage and nationalism far exceeded anything anyone came close to feeling in the U.S. Also, both faiths have a different perspective on the value of life than the West does in general, and won’t have the same qualms with taking it-for the Muslims because of jihad, and for Hindu’s because this life is just one of many, and because so much of their population are outcastes anyway. It makes for different arguments about what is ethical in war (and peace, for that matter.)

  4. I think Palit overstates the Islamic credentials of Musharraf. I don’t think that either Vajpayee or Musharraf is crazy enough to go nuclear. However, their successors may not be as sane. I’d be more optomistic than Green and say 1 in 10.

  5. If there is war, it will esculate to nuclear quickly, probably within 72 hours of any all-out assault by India. Pakistan will feel a nuclear first strike will be its only option, and I don’t think Pakistan’s military leadership will have any qualms about it. India will then retaliate with a massive nuclear response, literally wiping Pakistan off the map.

    But notice I said, “If there is war.” War is by no means certain. India is fed up with Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, but the leadership also realizes what is at stake and what will happen if they invade Pakistan.

    I’ve been posting regularly on this topic for several days — trying to get the blogosphere to give this issue more attention. The implications of the conflict are broad and will impact our War on Terrorism significantly.

    My latest post is here:
    http://www.globalnewswatch.com/index.cfm?action=full_text&ARTICLE_ID=183&CATEGORY_ID=15

  6. I’m afraid that the degree of Musharraf’s Islamism has less to do with his itchy-trigger finger than his hatred for India.

    Remember that Mushy was born in India, saw and felt the horrors of the partition, and rose through the ranks of the army as a social outcast for much of his life. He is a man with a lot to prove, cynical as it may sound. Put yourself in the shoes of a man who feels he always has to go the extra mile, always has to out-jihad his fellow jihadis, always has to prove his loyalty to his adopted country, always has to contend with people whispering behind his back about his “love” for his birth country… what would you do?

    We now know that Musharraf deployed nuclear weapons and delivery systems during the Kargill war and only some intense political manoevering by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif prevented a catastrophe. We all know what happened to him after he went back to Pakistan.. the architect of Kargill, and the man who has already demonstrated his willingness to consider the nuclear solution, is now the *sole* guardian of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. And people call me pessimistic ..!!

  7. I disagree with the statement that Jinna was granted Pakistan to prevent civil war – The partition turned out to be the bloodiest part of Indian history, with hundreds and thousands of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs being killed in the days following Independence. The border was carved out in blood – it is not cynical to think about how much more blood is going to be shed before there is peace.

  8. All of these analyses assume that it will be Musharraf in power when an Indo-Pakistan war kicks off. What if he isn’t? If he falls to a more radical Islamofascist leader (don’t forget the ISI and armed forces have pockets of real Islamic radicalism) then I would suggest that the likelihood of a nuclear exchange jumps several notches.
    What is the correlation of nucelar forces in the region? I’m assuming that the weaponry is still fission-level (maybe boosted fission) with relatively primitive delivery mechanisms (gravity bombs, theatre level ballistic missiles) and that neither side has full-on thermonukes. Even so, one Hiroshima-size warhead can ruin your whole day.

  9. I think the main reason why a nuclear war is highly possible between India and Pakistan is that the people, who will decide about it, know, for sure, that they won’t be the victim of the attack. They will anyway have bunkers to hide and airforce guarded flight to flee to safety.

Comments are closed.