India threatens war

[Defiant]

I am not sure of the exact sales dollars but I believe as you do we did sell them F-16's and rockets, since that was what the whole war was, rocket bombardment.

[Az]

Dalgetti, havent we tried that already? I mean, you kick the arabs ass every war. We killed the Iraqi's.....etc. I think we proved western equipment is better

arabs have the worst combination for troop quality. They don't have conscription , but they draft in times of war. With each of our soldiers drafted being a conscript for 3 years, he's as ready as a proffesional warrior, while they have hords of kids with AK-47s.

Iraq was a joke of an army , it's troops were lousily prepared, despite it being the 5th in the world by size , or something, and that compared to the army of the USA , one of the worlds super powers, or by then , the only one.

[faded glory]

hey difiant. Wisconsin eh? Anywhere near Racine?

Oh and Rockets? F-16's are horrible rocket crafts and the Iraqi's/Irani's didnt have them, Iran did have F-4 phantoms tho from the Shah. Both sides used shitloads of Katuysha's.

wow whata threadjack!


Do you think the Taliban/Al-queda have an interest in escalating this conflict between India and pakistan?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
The Admiral Gorshkov? let me check up with my dad. ok , he's not sure , but most chances are it's a Varyag . They're good, and carry SU-27s , IIRC , but I wonder in what condition is it.

Dad's wrong, sorry. The Varyag (which was Ukrainian property) got sold to the Chinese Nav....I'm sorry, a "Venture Capitalist Group" in Macao.

In fact, the damn thing was towed around in a giant circle in the Black Sea for a Year because the Turks wouldn't let it through. (It had no engine, and if it got loose it could have blocked the Bospherous and Dardnelles.)

At one point, a mysterious Helicopter landed on it's deck, by the time the guys who were towing it reached the ship, the 'copter had taken off, leaving this engomatic message:

"The French were here."

[Defiant]

Dal,
Be careful, you are right they were the 5th largest standing army in the world. It's amazing how fast you can get wiped out when in a day you lose your Command and Control structure do to Stealth bombers(they never saw them coming), Tomahawk missiles(can't stop them), superior air control and then 16" guns off the Wisconsin and Missouri just pounding the **** out of your positions to the point they were surrending to journalists. Republican guard is battled hardened and they didn't stand a chance against Western technology. You could have stuck your Israeli soldiers in their position and the outcome would have been the same. It is just superior firepower and technology. Then again that is why we spend so much money for technology, cause it works.

[Defiant]

Faded,
I meant MLRS for rocket attacks, I am in Plover, about the middle of the state. 2.5 hours from Racine.
You bet Al Queda wants the conflict in Pak-Ind, divert US's attention and possibly troops, same as Huessan wanting the Israeli-Palestine conflict to worsen or maintain.

[Andrew1999]

The "Admiral Gorshkov" that India is buying is the last of the old Kiev-class Yak carriers. It was going to be the "Baku" but then Baku decided to leave the USSR. The "Admiral Kuznetsov" is the one that can carry MiGs and Su's, and the Russians have kept it as their only working carrier. The "Varyag" was the same class as "Admiral Kuznetsov".

[David Floyd]

Regarding the carrier, it's frankly irrelevant for the next several years, as it is nowhere NEAR operational, and even if it were I doubt India has the money, men, or naval aircraft - or escorts - to put it to sea anyway.

However, the Viraat should be enough to shut down Pakistan's navy, although if it gets within range of Pakistani aircraft, I think it'll go down fast. Harriers vs. F-16s isn't exactly fair, but if India loses the carrier they take a huge hit in terms of morale and their position of strength as viewed by the outside world.

Therefore, India will probably keep its navy well offshore, negating its effectiveness in providing a viable threat, such as the USN/USMC did to Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

So, I don't think India's naval superiority will be a factor in the war, also keeping in mind their small amphibious capacity (IIRC, around a dozen LSTs and other smaller craft).

[Ramo]

Hopefully, this is just posturing, but... I don't know...

Originally posted by faded glory
We didnt arm anybody in Iran-Iraq? I dont think. We did give some money to Iraq, but not enough really to do very much, except say buy a dozen airplanes. The Russians sold 60 billion worth of equipment to Baghdad.

We did. We gave some Hawk Missile to Iran for money up front and then gave the money to anti Communist in Nic.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Pakistani India India Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

India's

The real problem is which way is the wind going to blow on that day they nuc. each other. China and SE Asia can be hit by fallout and also all of the Stan's country even Iran and Russia. The big question is what will those country do if they get hit with lots of radiation and lots of people died. China could used that to finaly take the land they have claim for years from India.
BTW the Dem. will blame Bush for not stopping the War.

[David Floyd]

Just so long as Bush keeps us out of it, I really don't care too much what happens

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Regarding the carrier, it's frankly irrelevant for the next several years, as it is nowhere NEAR operational, and even if it were I doubt India has the money, men, or naval aircraft - or escorts - to put it to sea anyway.

However, the Viraat should be enough to shut down Pakistan's navy, although if it gets within range of Pakistani aircraft, I think it'll go down fast. Harriers vs. F-16s isn't exactly fair, but if India loses the carrier they take a huge hit in terms of morale and their position of strength as viewed by the outside world.

Therefore, India will probably keep its navy well offshore, negating its effectiveness in providing a viable threat, such as the USN/USMC did to Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

So, I don't think India's naval superiority will be a factor in the war, also keeping in mind their small amphibious capacity (IIRC, around a dozen LSTs and other smaller craft).

Remember, Pakistan has ten modern submarines, (French and German boats, IIRC), so I suspect there will be the mpost widespread naval warfare seen since the Falklands.

[monkspider]

Can any of our Military gurus here speculate on the likelihood and viability of a Chinese invasion of Northern India if this war breaks out?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by monkspider
Can any of our Military gurus here speculate on the likelihood and viability of a Chinese invasion of Northern India if this war breaks out?

Why would the Chinese want to invade Northern India?

[Promethus]

The US DOD has run many "War Games" between India & Packistan and in every case Nukes are used because as they say "It's Use It Or Loose It".

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Why would the Chinese want to invade Northern India?

"Why climb Mt. Everest?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Andrew1999
India's natural state is to be partitioned. A unified subcontinent is much more the exception than the rule. Even being in only three parts (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) is anomalous--it's usually been more like a dozen. There's a ton of distinct langauges, cultures and ethnic groups, with differences greater than those in the EU.

Natural state? There's no such thing. Countries are artificial institutions.

Just because there are distinct languages and ethnic groups doesn't mean there should be individual countries. The former bears no causal relation with the latter.

The US and Canada are two separate countries dispite the fact that they are linguistically and culturally similar.

You are not going to find a country in this world without a number of minority groups. Does it mean that their "natural state" is to be broken up until each country is consisted solely of one ethnic group?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lonestar
"Why climb Mt. Everest?"

That means the US will nuke London if a war breaks out between India and Pakistan.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
bye bye Delhi

how many people live there? 10-20 million?

India is widely thought to have thermonuclear capability. Is the same true of Pakistan? Most sources on the web don't seem to credit them with that ability. Pakistani warheads are estimated to be in the 50 kt range. Enough to do some real damage, not enough to wipe a major city off the map.

[David Floyd]

Remember, Pakistan has ten modern submarines

Not according to http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/ - seems they have only 1 French built boat completed with two more planned, and the rest include 6 older coastal subs.

India, OTOH, has 4 Type 209s (with 2 more on order), and a good number of Kilos and Foxtrots.

Unless you have better info, I think you are lumping the navies together.

monk,

Can any of our Military gurus here speculate on the likelihood and viability of a Chinese invasion of Northern India if this war breaks out?

Although China has invaded India once before, in the 1960s, I doubt they would do so this time. They have far too much to lose on the world stage, and their image would take a huge hit if the launched an aggressive war on India.

[Lonestar]

Hazegray is a good site, but on this case I'll run with BBC on the matter. (Heard it on NPR)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Although China has invaded India once before, in the 1960s, I doubt they would do so this time. They have far too much to lose on the world stage, and their image would take a huge hit if the launched an aggressive war on India.

Correction: the 1962 border conflict was a Chinese response to Indian aggression. The PLA even unilaterally withdrew even though they could have easily capture New Delhi.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Natural state? There's no such thing. Countries are artificial institutions.

I never figured you for a creationist UR. Do you condider everything which was built by men to be artificial?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Just because there are distinct languages and ethnic groups doesn't mean there should be individual countries. The former bears no causal relation with the latter.

Bullsh!t. Not only is there a causal relationship between these two, it goes in both directions. It is not necessarily instantaneous, nor does it occur in 100% of the cases but there is a strong relationship nonetheless.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US and Canada are two separate countries dispite the fact that they are linguistically and culturally similar.

Two states who also happen to have a very strong alliance and a free trade agreement. They are obviously heading in the direction of union in the long run. The U.S. and Canada are more closely tied together than most historic states were internally.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You are not going to find a country in this world without a number of minority groups. Does it mean that their "natural state" is to be broken up until each country is consisted solely of one ethnic group?

I think he was referring to the geographical entity rather than the state when he used the term India.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sikander
Two states who also happen to have a very strong alliance and a free trade agreement. They are obviously heading in the direction of union in the long run. The U.S. and Canada are more closely tied together than most historic states were internally.

Pah. You guys have thought that since 1775, but we're still here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
I never figured you for a creationist UR. Do you condider everything which was built by men to be artificial?

Creationist? What creationist?

As for the artificial bit isn't that what the definition of "artificial" is? An item, a device, a concept, an organisation or an institution created by humans? What do you want me to go for? Natural? Supernatural?

Originally posted by Sikander
Bullsh!t. Not only is there a causal relationship between these two, it goes in both directions. It is not necessarily instantaneous, nor does it occur in 100% of the cases but there is a strong relationship nonetheless.

Is that the best you can do? If you want to make a connection than show your evidence instead of thumping at the chest.

Originally posted by Sikander
Two states who also happen to have a very strong alliance and a free trade agreement. They are obviously heading in the direction of union in the long run. The U.S. and Canada are more closely tied together than most historic states were internally.

With all the trade disputes that's currently happening?

Originally posted by Sikander
I think he was referring to the geographical entity rather than the state when he used the term India.

Same thing. Either way, if the presence of minority ethnic groups is the reason to break a country or region up into smaller parts, it should have happened to all the countries with the same condition, until it no longer holds true.

IIRC, there are various minority ethnic groups in the US.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Creationist? What creationist?

As for the artificial bit isn't that what the definition of "artificial" is? An item, a device, a concept, an organisation or an institution created by humans? What do you want me to go for? Natural? Supernatural?

I view men in the same way I view animals in this case. Our social structures are as natural as any in the animal kingdom, though they may not be hard-wired as most.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is that the best you can do? If you want to make a connection than show your evidence instead of thumping at the chest.

This is a case where the evidence is so overwhelming that it's easier to list the exceptions. Just looking at the UK there are still three political entities based on ethnic groups even though the languages of two of them are almost extinct and those two have been politically affiliated with England for centuries. Note that this political differentiation has been increasing recently just as many of the cultural vestiges of the two Celtic states have been washed away in a sea of English culture. Ethnic identity may knuckle under to force of arms, but it is amazingly resilient nonetheless, and in its absence it is very likely to arise into political differentiation. In the other direction (like peoples joining together into larger political entities) it usually takes an external military or cultural threat to break down provincial military / political structures. We can look at England as a good example, where numerous English kingdoms became one over time due in large part to the threat of Viking invasions.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Same thing. Either way, if the presence of minority ethnic groups is the reason to break a country or region up into smaller parts, it should have happened to all the countries with the same condition, until it no longer holds true.

IIRC, there are various minority ethnic groups in the US.

So every time it rains there should be a flood? The existing political structures have varying amunts of resiliency, just as a river has a certain capacity to handle more water than average. If the political status quo is weak, or the momentum for ethnic identity is strong, there is a greater chance that an ethnic state will assert itself.

[Defiant]

This is getting worse, I didn't know they had this many nuke between them, they are not the most powerful but still, 50 million possibly dead, can anybody rational such a loss?


Some fear the nuclear option in Kashmir

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

India-Pakistan conflict

Pakistani capital listens for rumble of war



WASHINGTON — A festering regional dispute could spark the world's first nuclear exchange and make the Sept. 11 terrorism toll look minuscule by comparison.

Experts say half a million to 50 million people could die if the conflict between Pakistan and India over the disputed province of Kashmir escalates to the use of nuclear weapons. The livelihoods of more than 1 billion people could be ruined, with global economic consequences.

In the USA, the health impact would be minimal, akin to the increased risk of cancer associated with nuclear tests conducted in the 1950s and '60s, experts say.

But the geopolitical repercussions would be devastating to the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

Even a conventional war would divert Pakistan from helping track down remaining leaders of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan is crucial in preventing al-Qaeda from regrouping in remote areas.

"When President Bush began his war on terrorism, he thought he could take the threats one at a time — al-Qaeda and then Iraq," says Joseph Circincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Well, it looks like this problem is forcing its way onto the U.S. agenda," as the Mideast has done.

Despite phone calls and visits to the region by senior U.S. and British diplomats, some experts say the Bush administration isn't doing enough to calm the crisis.

The South Asian neighbors, born in bloodshed when Britain gave independence to the Indian subcontinent in 1947, have fought three wars. They are closer to a fourth war than at any time since 1999, analysts say. The conflict is religiously based. India, predominantly Hindu, controls two-thirds of largely Muslim Kashmir.

In 1999, Pakistan began preparing nuclear weapons for possible deployment, according to Bruce Riedel, President Clinton's top South Asia adviser. Pakistan sent troops beyond an informal armistice line in Kashmir, then withdrew after Clinton delivered an ultimatum to then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif was overthrown later that year by his military chief, Pervez Musharraf.

The region has reached the boiling point again because of a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, the massacre of Indian Muslims by Hindus in the Indian state of Gujarat and, last week, the murder of families of Indian soldiers in Kashmir by Muslim militants.

Michael Krepon, a South Asia expert at the Stimson Center, says he doubts Pakistan ordered the latest attack but that the Musharraf government continues to support training camps for militants in the Pakistani sector of Kashmir.

Given India's much larger population and conventional forces, experts fear that Pakistan might resort to a nuclear attack if war erupted. "I would assume by now that Pakistan is starting to disperse its nuclear weapons to secret locations," says David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. He fears Pakistan might unleash one or two nukes as a "warning shot" or that a Pakistani commander might panic and carry out an unauthorized launch.

Pakistani Brig. Gen. Feroz Khan, a visiting fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, says Indian commanders also might overstep. "In the event of war, there could be a serious breakdown of communications on both sides," he says.

Both countries tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Pakistan is estimated to have 30-50 nuclear bombs; India 50-100. Most are in the 5-25 kiloton range, on the order of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, which killed 100,000 people.

That bomb exploded in the air. "If the Indians or Pakistanis exploded weapons at ground level in cities, millions could die and fallout would be lethal out to 10 or 20 miles," Albright says.

[faded glory]

uh-oh. Pakistan recalls 4000 peacekeepers, to khasmir. AND says they will conduct missile tests this week

[Defiant]

Yea Right, Missile tests (ie. nuclear warning blasts)