Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#21

Post by nnmgm »

phailhaus wrote: post #10
ghnm wrote: post #4

India 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.

One 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.

What I meant is that they are two shitholes who have been engaged in a petty, boring dispute so they can ignore their real problems.

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#22

Post by writepub »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #18
noir_lord wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'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…

It could be interesting to speculate what would happen in response to the fallout drifting over China & southern Russia. I could see both nations start raiding India/Pakistan with conventional forces just out of spite

I don't know about Pakistan, but the Indian military is not a trivial adversary for China/Russia to "raid". Russia also sees no benefit to raiding India, as the two have historically been closely allied.

Also, how practical is unprovokedly "raiding" a nuclear power that has shown a willingness to use nukes? Are you assuming the nukes get spent in one conflict? The stockpiles held by either probably suffices multiple wars.

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#23

Post by devoply »

merpnderp wrote: post #7

I 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?

Some 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.

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#24

Post by writepub »

_jgdh wrote: post #12
prudhvis wrote: post #6

India isn't playing with fire. India has a clear no first use policy.

India 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.

Ah! 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

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#25

Post by writepub »

devoply wrote: post #23
merpnderp wrote: post #7

I 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?

Some 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 cou…

What 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_...

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#26

Post by devoply »

writepub wrote: post #25
devoply wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some 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 cou…

What 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 consid…

India is not blameless in its treatment of Kishmir either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_a...

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#27

Post by writepub »

devoply wrote: post #26
writepub wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What 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 consid…

India is not blameless in its treatment of Kishmir either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_a...

I don't understand the response. India deserves terrorism now?

You swing from "but they inaccurately blame the state" to "they deserve it because ...".

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#28

Post by devoply »

writepub wrote: post #27
devoply wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is not blameless in its treatment of Kishmir either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_a...

I don't understand the response. India deserves terrorism now? You swing from "but they inaccurately blame the state" to "they deserve it because ...".

I never said any such thing. You are obviously extolling the virtues that all terrorism is evil. State violence is as evil as terrorism and two sides of the same coin. So you wish to paint a picture where evil Pakistan is the perpetrator where the truth is that Indian government and Indian army has done a lot to provoke militancy in Kashmir and should simply withdraw and all of Kashmir should be an independent state without evils of India or Pakistan affecting the region.

Re: India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire

#30

Post by Bhilai »

devoply wrote: post #23
merpnderp wrote: post #7

I 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?

Some 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 cou…

> Some 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.

Sorry but this is total BS. Pakistan as a state is known to support and sponsor terrorist groups including Jaish-e-Mohammed, which was responsible for the recent attack that led to deaths of 40 Indian soldiers. Jaish has terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir. So even if what you claim is true, the Govt. of Pakistan has all the powers to put an end to these camps but they chose not to.

Post reply on HN