Pakistan, India Conduct 'Routine' Missile Tests

A future war between Pakistan and India is nearly certain.

According to the article, there are more than a million troops on the disputed Kashmir border. It also says that they have fought 3 wars in the past 55 years.

Both nations have missiles with 1000+ mile ranges.

How long do you think it will be before they go to war?

Will nuclear weapons be used?

Will the US get involved?

Should the US get involved?

Mike

If America is to practice a "preemptive strike" doctrine, the US MUST exert diplomatic effort to prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan. If India uses our reasoning, they are justified in going after Pakistan. Since these countries are two nuclear powers this must not happen.

Oh yes, parallels that would reveal the hipocracy of our current policies.
That aside...

I think the US should involve themselves as little as possible in these situations, including Israel/Palestine. If we have this peace negotiation policy in Gaza then it should be in Kashmir though. We can't be involved in one area and neglect another, especially when nukes are involved.

I don't think that a disputed area that small will result in thermonuke glass making but anything is possible. I don't see either side going after the other's capitol cities and I think that it would take something of that magnitude to provoke retaliation of that level.

It's a "Mexican Standoff" and whomever pulls the trigger first would have to place their shot perfectly because the bodies natural reaction is to tense up and squeeze the trigger after being shot.

Determining HOW LONG, man that's a trick. I'd like to see what others have to say about that.

Action against Iraq would not be hypocritical. The difference in the two situations is that action against Iraq is being considered only after diplomatic efforts to acheive free inspections fail. Action before that time WOULD be hypocritical. Differences in the two situations are small but critical. The biggest problem is that the UN seems to have been ignoring both the Iraq and India/Pakistan situations lately...

Maybe we should just disarm India and Pakistan & disallow them to have any weapons of mass destruction.

I'm trying real hard to stay on topic.

It seems that Pakistan and India are both peacable countries, except toward one another. Increased diplomatic focus on the issue should be successful. All without violating either nation's rights to arm themselves.

Roy - don't worry about staying on topic. You are are right on. The India-Pakistan problem is a perfect display of hyprocisy in American policy.

Pakistan was a major supporter of Al-Queda and the Taliban before 9/11. If Musharraf had not stepped up and offered so much help, they would have been second on our list, not Iraq. India would have been more than happy to support us. China would have started to freak out a little because the whole situation was in their back, er, sideyard. All our focus would be further east. The demand for inspections would be directed to Pakistan, not Iraq.

LONG before 9/11 I found it hypocritial that the US AND UN wanted to disarm places like Iraq or Yugoslavia but it was OK to leave places like India, Pakistan and China alone. Why are some nations "allowed" powerful weapons and others are not?

Focus on Iraq in the US is unavoidable, the issue will interest the public so the media will run it, unlike India/Pakistan. And of couse our politicians will focus on whatever the public focuses on. The UN is suppossed to be taking care of the situation, but it's very hard to keep an eye on them... I wonder if their website's any good.

Why are we in Isreal/Palistine and not in Pakistan/India? Simple

Neither side has asked for our help.

If you read the articles under headlines, you will often see one side of a conflict ask, or sometimes DEMAND, US intervention to help resolve a situation.

Isreal is an ally of ours

Sharon has many times asked, and sometimes DEMANDED our help. So we go.

If Pakistan or India DEMANDED our help, rest assured, we'd be there too.

--cheers

Sure they've asked for our help. Has Iraq asked for our help against their evil dictator?

Sharon asks for our help and we unconditionally support him. We ask that he complies with UN resolutions and he says No. F*!K Sharon and Israel.
We support your country, we hide behind the guise of enforcing UN resolutions yet Israel violates the first obsticle in peace negotiations time and time agan.

We support Israel and ask for no accountablity. Those are American tanks occupying Palestine AGAINST UN resolutions. When we ask that they pull back in the interest of stabilizing the area then that country should listen or we should stop backing them.

Pakistan and India hasn't asked for help. That's never stopped us involving ourselves before.

Iraq is the greatest threat to the US because it refuses to engage in meaningful diplomacy (until we threaten war and even now inspections are not free). Unlike North Korea or Pakistan where there is real dialouge. Regarding UN resolution, don't you find it pathetic that the UN can't enforce it own resolutions?

Iraq doesn't engage in meaningful diplomacy? Explain that to the Russians and Chinese, both of whom seem to get along with Iraq just fine.

I do agree that it IS pathetic that the UN can't enforce its resolutions against Iraq AND Israel. If there is going to be law it needs to be enforced or changed. What is the point of wasting billions on the maintenance of a UN if they do nothing but talk? We all do that here for free.

As far as the topic at hand goes, does anyone know if there are any UN resolutions relating to India and Pakistan?

I'm really glad to see that someone has said this, thank you Jamie.

When I asked someone to make a REAL argument to justify war with Iraq the ONLY one that held ANY water was Iraq's violations of the UN's resolutions. Israel is in violation of, I BELIEVE 47 UN Resolutions.

At this point (re: Iraq) it's not even a matter of the UN supporting us logistically but the UN won't even support us VOCALLY.

UN resolutions for Pak/India, hmmm....

UN Resolution 1172, June 6, 1998

This basically says the UN thinks it's bad for India and Pakistan to test nuclear weapons.

The last resolutions I can find before that is Resolution 80 (1950), Resolution 47 (1948), and Resolution 39 (1948).

Resolution #39 created a Commission to "smooth away difficulties", and to and to "investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations".

Article 34:



Resolution # 47 made the Commission created in Resolution #39 bigger. It also told India that they have to allow major political groups governmental representation.

Resolution #80 congratulates India and Pakistan for stopping the dispute, and encourages them to disarm. It also get rid of the Commission created by Resolution # 39.

Of course, these are very loose paraphrasings of the resolutions. Read them for more info.

Another interesting thing I also learned is that with exception of 1998 and 2000, the Indian Ocean has been a zone of peace, thanks to the "Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace " by the UN. What happened in 98 and 00? I have no idea.

Mike

I was refering to the WMD conflict with the "meaningful diplomacy" comment, Iraq has not dealt with that issue, and the UN is too passive to do anything about it.
The same goes for India/Pakistan, though again there is dialouge between these countries and the UN, so the danger MAY still be dealt with peacefully, if the UN ever decides to... I dunno, protect the world from weapons of mass destruction

Let's understand something right away. Pakistan and especially its fundamentalist-dominated ISI intelligence agency is the main wrongdoer in the regional conflict. They are the ones training terrorists who blow up the Indian Parliament( the Lok Sabha) and who have provided a hiding place for al-Qaeda terrorists including probably Osama and Mullah Omar. India has tried to preserve democratic forms in Kashmir which the ISI and its allies have been attacking. Why are Muslim terrorists blowing up polling stations? Could it be that they understand that the majority Muslim population of the region wishes to remain part of India?

India has had to develop nuclear weapons and IBM technology because the Pakis have it. The Pakis openly support the massacre of non-Muslims in their nation as recent attacks on Christian missionaries clearly demonstrate. Sure, Pervaz('my rug is even funnier than Trafficant's)Musharraf sends out his goons to arrest some 3d level idiot occasionally but none of the big shots even get a harsh talking-to. India has no choice.

I think this will devolve into a nuclear confrontation which Pakistan cannot win and India can, but only with enormous casualties and devastation to the economy. The Pakis cannot win conventionally. They got squashed in the 60s and they got squashed in the 70s. India has a large cadre of well-educated professional and middle class people, while Pakistan has by and large surrendered education to the mosque, where the students study an Idiot's Guide to the Koran and How To Be a Suicide Bomber, but little else. Pakistan's economy and society have been in free fall since independence.

Unfortunately, we're stuck in the middle. We need some cooperation from Coonskin Cap Musharraf in setting up the new Afghan government. One of the issues is the fact that the Afghans hate the Pakis and have always nudged closer to India, despite the religious differences. If India and Pakistan start throwing nukes around Americans will get killed in the fallout. Also, India is one of the world's major players in IT and as such there are many joint projects between Indian and American companies.

Finally, there is the fact that this is just one more flashpoint in Islam's war against civilization. As the leading force for civilization in the world, we must side with India against the Pakis. There really is no negotiation possible with Muslims that is worth anything. We can see how Saddam Hussein has slid back on his word with the UN since the Gulf War and we can see how Arafat is nothing but a pathological liar and we can see how Mubarak is just a two-bit corrupt thug, who has undone virtually everything the Camp David accords, brokered by Mr. Peanut Brain, were intended to accomplish.

whow slow down mike...

I think that america will get involved because pakistan is helping america with terrorist! I do believe america should get involved

But here's the problem: We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, Pakistan has been "helpful" as you say; on the other hand, India is the largest democracy in the world, and Pakistan is run by... a military dictator. Now, this kind of thing hasn't stopped us before, but we're not dealing here with little central American countries. There would be almost no way to spin this or gloss over it if we were to support Pakistan against India.

Corgi said:


Wow, I don't get where THAT comes from! War against civilization? Flashback into history please... when Europe was starting to come out of the "dark ages," who's culture had preserved and expanded upon the learning of the ancient Greeks and Romans? Who's culture placed such an emphasis on seeking knowledge? Could it be... yes it was... the Muslims! First of all, Hussein is an Arab. He runs a secular government. Were you maybe thinking of Saudi Arabia? Wait, they're our friends... or was it Indonesia? Wait, their our friends... Did you know that "Mr. Peanut Brain," the only President to have had his IQ score publicly released (accidently if I recall, he wasn't touting it, rather someone discovered it) had an IQ of like 174? Quite a peanut!

We should not let Pakistan and India go to war. period. Did anybody read the New Yorker article on the subject? If we let a war which would devestate the world economy, kill millions of people and pollute the environment happen we would be not only evil but stupid. I say we keep diplomatic pressure on both sides to stop them from fighting each other. Same with North and South Korea. Bush doesn't seem to know diplomacy isn't conducted with a laser guided bomb. People said a war betweem the USA and Soviet Union was inevitable. America should remeber war is terrible for both sides.

Ranciduncle.

We should not let Pakistan and India go to war.

Now just who the hell are you to tell the World who should or should not go to War.
Should India or Pakistan tell America not to go to War?.

Is it OK for America to do it when it wants to?

Get real.........

Alan