India attacks Pakistan (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

This long simmering conflict gets kinetic.

 

[UriUT]

This long simmering conflict gets kinetic.

If only Pakistan and India would have an agreement like India and China at the border. None can have guns. Violence can only erupt into stick fighting.

 

[efil4]

We have now seen, in just last 3 years:

Russia v Ukraine
Israel v Gaza
India v Pakistan

Im now worried India is following the script- the attack is simply a response to a provocation ( which still hasnt been determined was Pakistani nationals ) simply because they are larger ( both in military, population and land sense ) - just like Russia, just like Israel, and as of now, getting little condemnation for the strike. And the one lone superpower in all this, is conspicuously mum. Just like Gaza, just like Ukraine. That silence is enabling larger actors to act on neighboring states with little fear of global condemnation. Emboldening others who may have their own issues with neighboring countries.

The script will write itself going forward - India will make moves to see where is the red line. If Pakistan responds, it gives India the increased retaliation card. If Pakistan doesnt respond, what does that mean internally for the government?

the one difference in all of these conflicts- both actors hold nuclear weapons. Thats a real problem and needs to be addressed. Very problematic from a survival standpoint- if Pakistan fears survival, will they resort to use of nuclear option?

And still on deck is China and Taiwan.

We are in a period of unrest due to the unravelling of global partnerships and friendships and i dont know where this ends. Our place as a global leader thru diplomatic means is gone. We no longer look to engage in diplomacy, rather turn the cheek and allow these conflicts/wars to run their course, all the while saying " i got nothing to do with that"

i dont know why, but i do know we wont be in a better spot in 3 years. I dont know what the landscape will look like in 3 years.

 

[bird]

We have now seen, in just last 3 years:

Russia v Ukraine
Israel v Gaza
India v Pakistan

Im now worried India is following the script- the attack is simply a response to a provocation ( which still hasnt been determined was Pakistani nationals ) simply because they are larger ( both in military, population and land sense ) - just like Russia, just like Israel, and as of now, getting little condemnation for the strike. And the one lone superpower in all this, is conspicuously mum. Just like Gaza, just like Ukraine. That silence is enabling larger actors to act on neighboring states with little fear of global condemnation. Emboldening others who may have their own issues with neighboring countries.

The script will write itself going forward - India will make moves to see where is the red line. If Pakistan responds, it gives India the increased retaliation card. If Pakistan doesnt respond, what does that mean internally for the government?

the one difference in all of these conflicts- both actors hold nuclear weapons. Thats a real problem and needs to be addressed. Very problematic from a survival standpoint- if Pakistan fears survival, will they resort to use of nuclear option?

And still on deck is China and Taiwan.

We are in a period of unrest due to the unravelling of global partnerships and friendships and i dont know where this ends. Our place as a global leader thru diplomatic means is gone. We no longer look to engage in diplomacy, rather turn the cheek and allow these conflicts/wars to run their course, all the while saying " i got nothing to do with that"

i dont know why, but i do know we wont be in a better spot in 3 years. I dont know what the landscape will look like in 3 years.

We have had multiple occasions in the last several decades to alter our stance regarding geopolitics. By altering it I do not mean walking away but something different. The concept of the “indispensable nation” is flawed. It both taxes us from a resource standpoint and also infantilizes other countries. A potential answer is not to back away but to actually become the neutral disinterested party that is willing to try and stop things before they start.

This is convoluted so I apologize for not making myself clear.

The U.S. has a policy position regarding a concept that is relatively recent. That policy position is national security. This policy has had and continues to result in virtually anything and everything being looked at as a threat to national security. India and Pakistan is one place where we can and perhaps should try to act as a mediator. That means neither side gets special favors. It also means that we cannot impose our will upon them.

The world is shifting. Too many chant USA! which is mindless jingoism. Too often we side with one country or another arbitrarily based on either some special relationship or on some economic reason, many times arms sales.

A multi-polar world is not what is evolving. Imo, it is becoming a non-polar world. We cannot force project the way we have in the past. The new world will be unstable. Working to minimize instability is crucial. What we have to accept is that dumping weapons or putting a bunch of ships off someone’s coast or a bunch of boots on the ground no longer works towards stability. I don’t know what will work but what we are doing doesn’t work.

Unfortunately, our internal politics doesn’t serve us or the world any longer.

 

[superchuck500]

We have had multiple occasions in the last several decades to alter our stance regarding geopolitics. By altering it I do not mean walking away but something different. The concept of the “indispensable nation” is flawed. It both taxes us from a resource standpoint and also infantilizes other countries. A potential answer is not to back away but to actually become the neutral disinterested party that is willing to try and stop things before they start.

This is convoluted so I apologize for not making myself clear.

The U.S. has a policy position regarding a concept that is relatively recent. That policy position is national security. This policy has had and continues to result in virtually anything and everything being looked at as a threat to national security. India and Pakistan is one place where we can and perhaps should try to act as a mediator. That means neither side gets special favors. It also means that we cannot impose our will upon them.

The world is shifting. Too many chant USA! which is mindless jingoism. Too often we side with one country or another arbitrarily based on either some special relationship or on some economic reason, many times arms sales.

A multi-polar world is not what is evolving. Imo, it is becoming a non-polar world. We cannot force project the way we have in the past. The new world will be unstable. Working to minimize instability is crucial. What we have to accept is that dumping weapons or putting a bunch of ships off someone’s coast or a bunch of boots on the ground no longer works towards stability. I don’t know what will work but what we are doing doesn’t work.

Unfortunately, our internal politics doesn’t serve us or the world any longer.

Historically, the fairly close relationship between the US and Pakistan kept India (which is clearly more powerful) at bay. Based on Cold War alignments, the US supported Pakistan in the 1971 war that ultimately led to Pakistan developing nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. And then between the Soviet bid in Afghanistan and the rise of Iran and Iraq, it was important for the US to remain close with Pakistan.

Obviously, that relationship has become much weaker in the 21st century especially with Trump, and the calculus for India has changed.

 

[UriUT]

Maybe I am overly optimistic here. I just don't believe this skirmish will radiate out beyond this longstanding regional dispute or even lead to full blown war between these two. All precisely because of the nukes. A good comparison is south and north Korea. South Korea dwarf their northern counterpart economically and militarily. The idea that loads of artillery and nukes falling down on Seoul prevents the South from any aggressive actions.

If anyone are friends or acquaintances with hindi Indians and Pakistanis, they would be really aware of the deep hatred. Hell even between hindi and Muslim Indians. Despite that, both parties are fully and rationally aware of the nukes. I don't think this will be the tipping point to this cycle. Certainly, Pakistan will retaliate, but war, IMHO, is unlikely.

 

[efil4]

Maybe I am overly optimistic here. I just don't believe this skirmish will radiate out beyond this longstanding regional dispute or even lead to full blown war between these two. All precisely because of the nukes. A good comparison is south and north Korea. South Korea dwarf their northern counterpart economically and militarily. The idea that loads of artillery and nukes falling down on Seoul prevents the South from any aggressive actions.

If anyone are friends or acquaintances with hindi Indians and Pakistanis, they would be really aware of the deep hatred. Hell even between hindi and Muslim Indians. Despite that, both parties are fully and rationally aware of the nukes. I don't think this will be the tipping point to this cycle. Certainly, Pakistan will retaliate, but war, IMHO, is unlikely.

I tend to agree.

But the precedent it being laid. Skirmishes can expand at any moment, for any reason. Dont need Pakistan to nuke India. Just need a bad actor with a dirty bomb set off in Dehli to turn a skirmish into a full blown nuclear conflict.

The Sum of All Fears comes to mind. Will we ever get to that point? Highly unlikely. But the chance increases with every "skirmish".

IT just bothers me that the US is just so "hands off" with respect to order in all of these instances ( still very early in Pak/India so im sure calls are being made, but maybe not )

Shoot, Trump was holding a press conference in the Oval office and found out about the strike "as he was walking in " ( his exact words to question about it from press)

 

[UriUT]

I tend to agree.

But the precedent it being laid. Skirmishes can expand at any moment, for any reason. Dont need Pakistan to nuke India. Just need a bad actor with a dirty bomb set off in Dehli to turn a skirmish into a full blown nuclear conflict.

The Sum of All Fears comes to mind. Will we ever get to that point? Highly unlikely. But the chance increases with every "skirmish".

IT just bothers me that the US is just so "hands off" with respect to order in all of these instances ( still very early in Pak/India so im sure calls are being made, but maybe not )

Shoot, Trump was holding a press conference in the Oval office and found out about the strike "as he was walking in " ( his exact words to question about it from press)

Historically, India and in a lesser extent Pakistan have rejected US mediation. That's another reason why I don't think this will blow up. Trump poking his face in and injecting his stupidity will only make matters worse.