Author Topic: Anyone else worried about the Kashmir region? (Read 615 times)

moose · « **on:** December 27, 2001, 11:21:00 AM »

Two nuclear powers about to slug it out with each other with another one bordering their north.

If something doesn't happen to defuse the India / Pakistan crises, you have to wonder how long they'll fight until someone hits 'the switch' and starts nuclear war.

Hortlund · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2001, 11:34:00 AM »

Actually I'm not that worried. First because the nuclear threshold is pretty high, and I dont see how or why they would go nuclear even if they did have a conventional war. Perhaps if one nation was on the brink of extinction but the rest of the world would never let it go that far.

But also because in the unlikely event that they do decide to exchange, the risk of spreading is practically zero. I mean what would happen? India nukes Pakistan, who retaliates by nuking London and New York? ...Dont think so.

Eagler · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2001, 12:41:00 PM »

if they are that STUPID, I say let them wipe each other out. Maybe the following CNN newscasts would scare the toejame out of the rest of the world to prevent it in the future...

I'm a little more concerned about the upcoming New Years celebrations in NY Time Square and other spots around the world. Now that our terrorists are celebrities, they’ll want more airtime for their follies...

Animal · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2001, 01:11:00 AM »

i'm with Eagler.

Hortlund · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2001, 03:26:00 AM »

Agreed. Those terrorists scare me more than the good 'ol commies did back in the 80s. At least you knew that the Soviets were rational, if you know what I mean.

The dirty bomb scenario is something that is *really* scary.

miko2d · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2001, 08:13:00 AM »

US should interfere immediately, otherwise our supplies of cashmiere goods are going to dry out. The prices are way too high as it is. Last time I checked, a plain cashmiere scarf at Brooks Brothers was $170.

miko

Dago · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2001, 10:51:00 AM »

No, I am not worried, nor do I think the US should be the worlds policeman. Let countries closer be concerned, let us watch our own borders.

But, in cases like Afghanistan and terrorists, let us go where we need to go, do what we need to do. Make them fear us and maybe things will change some.

dago

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2001, 11:14:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago:
Make them fear us and maybe things will change some.

"Fear" is a very wrong word here. In fact your statement can be quoted and misused by our enemies in their propaganda - and they would be right, if that was our official policy.

Make them respect us would be much better choice of words.
Respect means that nobody should fear us but everybody should fear to screw up with us.

Ever heard anyone invade swiss over the last 500 years? In WWI and WWII both allies and axis considered doing that but faced with a nation where every citizen is a soldier not ready to take toejam from anyone, they prudently went around.
At the same time nobody fears swiss and they could not be more happy about it.

miko

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

capt. apathy · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2001, 11:41:00 AM »

miko,
while i agree the prices are high, i think military action is a little extreem over a scarf, or even a nice sweater

Tac · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2001, 12:13:00 PM »

Well miko, you also have to consider the extreme ruggedness of the swiss terrain coupled with the fact that the swiss are really no threat.

Where would they legally stash their cash anyway..or get cool pocket knives? No, the swiss are blessed I tell ya

Dago · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2001, 03:53:00 PM »

Yeah, its not worth invading Switzerland, the chocolate is overrated there anyway.

I like to have others fear us myself, but of course that wont happen. Others attack us because they have never feared retribution.
Now maybe that will change. Thank the Lord and the brighter voters that Clinton is gone and Gore didnt replace him. Whew.

dago

moose · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2001, 01:24:00 AM »

I'm thinking more along the lines of breaking the 'virginity' of the world with it's first nuclear war.

Once they start, it'll just make it easier for others to push the button.

Boroda · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2001, 05:41:00 AM »

Moose, nukes were already used twice.

I think this is the time when the "coalition" must act together, and both Russia and NATO declare that the first country to release nuclear weapons will face our combined power.

StSanta · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2001, 09:42:00 AM »

Extremely.

There's a sideeffect to the War on Terrorism declared by the US and supported by most nations.

The US declare an organisation a "terrorist organisation", and then seek out to crush it, using the (correct so far) labelling of terrorists as a reason.

Now, Israelis are doing the same. Palestinians are too, but they haven't got the firepower to enforce, whereas the Israelis have.

Now India is using the same. Not to go to war against terrorists, but a nation. Because that nation is sheltering terrorists. And, much like the US did, evidence won't be shared with a neutral part. The US gave irrefutable evidence only after the war had started, probably to protect its intelligence sources.

Now the Indians are doing the same.

We got two countries here, both with nukes. both new nuclear powers who haven't had the "benefit" of having participated in the Cold War as active nuclear powers. They lack the experience the US, China, France etc have.

All this over a stupid piece of land with little economical importance.

Strategic importance? I dunno: both have nukes, so both know they cannot push too ar into the others nation without being nuked. Hm.