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

India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 714 posts

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#601

Post by lazide »

rendang wrote: post #595
lazide wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Pakistan is a lot less stable right now than 2019 (as is the world). 2) The putative organization is in Pakistan, and likely supported by the military. The biggest threat India is doing (IMO) is threatening the water supply. That is getting everyone in Pakistan’s attention. These strikes are more about managing the local political situation in India, which requires some degree of obvious violent retribution.

Can India build new aqueducts/pipelines to divert water from the headwaters they control? Dams only have finite capacity after all

Yes, albeit they would be susceptible to being shelled. With, uh, unpredictable but likely bad consequences if they happens.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#602

Post by ponector »

krisoft wrote: post #465
nblgbg wrote: post #61

I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi government wants to project strength. They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. So, they targeted some areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). In response, Pakistan claimed to have shot down four Indian air…

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.

No one is going to deploy nukes. They have no use against the troops. To level enemy city? Mass casualties, but would not help to win the modern war.

That's why there was no sense for Ukraine to keep nukes. They should have kept strategic bombers, though.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#603

Post by dmurray »

enugu wrote: post #594
reverendsteveii wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could have gone after the people who actually did 9/11 but that was a bit of a non-starter. Also I think you're equivocating between multiple interpretations of "the terrorists" when most people absolutely wouldn't draw a distinguishing line between, using 9/11 as an example again, the actual hijackers and Osama bin Laden. There's absolutely no question that any time the phrase "the 9/11 terrorists" is used it mea…

The context was a reply to an assertion that the terrorists in Pahalgam were not found by Indian security. I interpreted this as people who physically did the attack. If by terrorists, we mean the planners of the operation, that trail leads directly to Pakistan. Musharraf, the ex-army chief, is on record saying that the military has funded several militant organizations in Kashmir including LeT. (Osama's haveli in Ab…

"funding militant organizations" isn't the same as committing acts of terrorism. Nobody would have said the US should have responded to the 9/11 attacks with airstrikes on the CIA headquarters.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#604

Post by alephnerd »

cheema33 wrote: post #340
alephnerd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan is definitely more anti-peace than India. But while Islamabad undermines peace, New Delhi is mostly uninterested in it. That's a framing I agree with. > This is not projecting power, it's the UAE (and Qatar) playing their aspirational roles as the new Davos/Switzerland for diplomacy. Sure, but in India-Pakistan relations, they (UAE and KSA, not Qatar) are increasingly the only mediators with whom both part…

> I dislike Trump - I primarily only agree with his tariff policy, nothing else. Just out of curiosity, what about this tariff policy do you like?

We spent several billions of dollars rebuilding a supply chain in automotive, energy, and semiconductor inputs (not just chips but the associated materials, processing, and gases used in fabrication) via the IRA, IILA, and CHIPS Act.

We need to incentivize American manufacturers to utilize that supply chain instead of co-mingling foreign inputs in an attempt to maximize margins while having taken advantage of the tax and cash incentives used when availing the aforementioned benefits during the Biden admin.

Tariffs are the easiest way to allow the American ecosystem to actually redevelop and stick, instead if wisping away due to malicious compliance. The Biden admin even considered adding similar barriers, but decided against it because they didn't want to risk a protracted trade war during a competitive election cycle.

Furthermore, most consumer goods and a number of industrial goods that would hurt the "average American's" pocketbook have alternative supply chains like Philippines, Brazil, Turkiye, India, Mexico etc that have now been made cost competitive compared to Chinese inputs.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#605

Post by mopsi »

somenameforme wrote: post #591
macintux wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of a membership action plan, NATO saying "Yes, someday Ukraine will be a member" (something that they were barely able to agree on in 2008, and nothing changed in the 15 years after that) is hardly "imminent".

Nothing changed is a rather odd way to read that page. The US not only began actively and publicly disregarding any protestations of Russia, but were actively carrying out NATO-Ukraine military exercises in seas right off the border of Russia. All the while you also had things like British warships intentionally entering Russian waters around Crimea. [1] There were constant provocations that would not have even been…

From the article:

  HMS Defender was sailing from Odessa in southern Ukraine to Georgia. To get there, it passed south of the Crimea peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014 in a move that has not been recognised internationally. While Moscow claims the peninsula and its waters are Russian territory, the UK says HMS Defender was passing through Ukrainian waters in a commonly used and internationally recognised transit route.
Not quite the story you are trying to spin.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#606

Post by pwthornton »

whatshisface wrote: post #537
enugu wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization r…

> when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks The mission in Afghanistan was very much to find Bin Laden. It was changed after he escaped.

It was very much to dismantle Al Qaeda and senior leadership. Just killing Bin Laden wouldn’t have done that much.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#607

Post by nitwit005 »

enugu wrote: post #420
nindalf wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation. There were fewer terrorist attacks, certainly. I'm sure the Indian government would like to believe that the 2019 strike had an effect, but far more likely causes are - Money. Pakistan's economy has stagnated and the country has lurched from one IMF bailout to the next (2019, 2023, 2024). It got so bad at one point that politic…

If you are actually arguing that a country targeted by a terrorist attack does not gain deterrence with a counterstrike relative to letting things go on, then how uniform do you consider this prescription? Should the terror attacks in the US or France not have had a military response? What happens to the incentives of terror groups in response to such a policy? --- The role of money only becomes an issue when conduct…

> What happens to the incentives of terror groups in response to such a policy?

You're imagining these people to be some sort of loyalists, rather than something closer to anarchists. Triggering military responses is going to be viewed as a bonus.

I'll note people rather frequently claimed Bin Laden wanted the US to be tied up in the military quagmire that their terror attacks produced. There's certainly some logic to that idea. His organization was too small to do much direct damage.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#608

Post by [deleted] »

ben_w wrote: post #552
ashoeafoot wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not, you goto look at how the actors in the region act and invest. Some of the regions rich seem remarkable calm towards a muklear armed iran.

Can Pakistan can ship nukes to Iran fast enough for the Iranian economy to supply in return a militarily useful quantity of anti-air and anti-missile defence systems? On a timescale of "shooting currently happening"? If not, that's a problem for the rest of the decade, whereas an escalating situation on this border could've already evaporated a few cities between me having read the headline 20 minutes ago and pressin…

[deleted]

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#609

Post by badc0ffee »

prmph wrote: post #588
krisoft wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.

They are not going to use nukes. I always wonder at the people who have this idea that states are going to use nukes on a whim. The taboo against the use of nukes is very strong, so strong that I believe nuclear armed nations would rather wage conventional warfare even at great cost, and consider nukes only in the extreme situation where the very survival of the state is seriously threatened (and even then I'm doubtf…

Does this hold even for North Korea?

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#610

Post by sbmthakur »

oefrha wrote: post #327
sbmthakur wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are fuel tanks, not jets. And their source is "four local government sources". In a conflict fueled with massive disinformation I would rely on something more concrete.

It’s your country, I’m just a neutral on the outside. If you want to take the stance of “fake news”, “no evidence of that” unless India publicly admits it, by all means. I don’t count on that happening though because there’s obviously “appease the domestic population” going on.

I am more than happy to believe that 100 Indian jets were shot as long as there's credible evidence. It's war and casualties are expected.
Post reply on HN