The next nuclear war

Dawn (Pakistan) ^ | 26 May 2002 | Gwynne Dyer

[AM2000]

India and Pakistan haven't fought a real war with each other for over thirty years now, and few people on either side realise that it wouldn't be like the wars of the past, when mostly soldiers died.

In neither country has public opinion grasped the fact that nuclear weapons change everything. So let us imagine what a war between the two would be like in 2002.

India, of course, doesn't want a nuclear war, because its seven times bigger population and ten times larger economy mean that it would almost certainly win a conventional war with Pakistan. It makes perfect sense, therefore, for India to promise 'no first use' of nuclear weapons, and it has duly done so. It is in this wishful context that Indian officials talk about the possibility of a "limited war" in which India, naturally, would be victorious.

Pakistan's position is precisely the opposite. It has not promised to refrain from using its nuclear weapons first, because to do so would leave India free to crush it in a conventional war. For Pakistan, nuclear weapons are the essential 'equaliser' that puts both parties in a position of equal vulnerability. That is why the Vajpayee government's decision four years ago to test Indian nuclear weapons, forcing Pakistan to follow suit, was a strategic imbecility: the only war with Pakistan that India might not win is a nuclear war.

Prime Minister Vajpayee is determined to punish Pakistan for what he sees as Pakistani government-backed 'cross-border terrorism' (though the Islamist terrorists may now be beyond President Musharraf's control, and some are deliberately trying to precipitate a war). Musharraf is committed to launching nuclear weapons if the Indian army breaks through Pakistani defences. India would inevitably reply with its own nuclear weapons. What would such a war be like?

For those who do not live in the subcontinent, the most important fact is that the damage would be largely confined to the region. The cold war is over, the strategic understandings that once tied India and Pakistan to the rival alliance systems have all been cancelled, and no outside powers would be drawn into the fighting.

The detonation of a hundred or so relatively small nuclear weapons over India and Pakistan would not cause grave harm to the wider world from fallout. People over 40 have already lived through a period when the great powers conducted hundreds of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and they are mostly still here. Bangladesh and Burma would see a big rise in radiation-related deaths over the next decade, but the damage elsewhere would be slight.

For India and Pakistan, however, the experience would be beyond imagination. Take the lowest estimates of deliverable Indian and Pakistani nuclear warheads - say 100 for India, and 50 for Pakistan. Assume that one-third are destroyed before launch or fail to work. Drop most of the rest on cities, or on army bases and airfields that are near cities. What do you get?

Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Multan and Karachi: gone. Delhi, Ahmedabad, Amritsar, Jaipur and maybe Bombay: gone. Twenty or thirty or fifty million people killed outright or condemned to a lingering death - as if somebody suddenly exterminated Spain or South Korea. Pakistan broken into squabbling successor states, and perhaps India split between the economically dynamic south and the less prosperous, horribly injured northern 'Hindi belt' as well.

Of course, nothing so bad has happened since the last nuclear war, 57 years ago. Maybe it won't happen now. Maybe Vajpayee and Musharraf are both just bluffing. We shall see - and probably by autumn.- Copyright

[tomahawk]

Pakistan has had a death wish for years. They keep trying to wrestle Kashmir from India and India will never let it happen. To achieve this unreachable goal, Pakistan is willing to have itself destroyed. Tens of millions may die for this stupidity.

[Centurion2000]

The other effects:

1) The threshold for using a nuclear weapon will significantly drop.
Tactical nuclear weapons use will not seem nearly as bad since only a few thousand might be killed rather than the 50 million that die in the India-Pakistan exchange of 2002 (hypothetical future rationalization)

2) The non-proliferation treaty will become just another piece of paper.

3) S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Scandinavia, Argentina ... pretty much any industrialized country with a nuclear reactor will become a nuclear power as fast as possible.

[JSteff]

Great analysis. I actually think though that we would want Israel to clean up it's part of the world. We would say harsh things about them but will actually have been in complete concordance with there actions. After all, we are not stupid and every problem solved by Israel is one less for us to solve.

My only question is: Russia would know or expect what happened and how would they react? To us? To Israel? Or do we buy them off in some sort of tit for tat, cash, or both?

[Cicero]

Interesting. We tend to think that it's us against the Muslims, but you may be right. They have a positive gift for making enemies. India is resolutely anti-Muslim. Although Russia has toyed with the radical Arab regimes, it also opposes Islamic fundamentalism. China enjoys stirring up trouble, but they are in no position to help much if a real crunch comes. I doubt if the US would permit them to attack India directly.

[JSteff]

there=their

[sourcery]

Have you considered the possibility that others may see the situation pretty much as you have described it, and may therefore be secretly hoping that India will do the deed, and take the heat?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The India-Pakistani Conflict... some background information-

[john in missouri]

Despised in Europe, loathed in North America, hated in Russia, on the verge of a genocidal war with India and looked upon as psychopaths by virtually all the rest of mankind, Islam SHOULD be toning it down not revving it up but sometimes people just don't have a clue.

This is one of the bad things of thinking that G-d Almighty himself is automatically wholeheartedly on your side and you are invincible and can do no evil, even if you murder innocent people, just because you call yourself a "Whatever."

[My Identity]

Pakistan has had a death wish for years

A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/632731/posts
Atlantic Monthly, March 2002

From a conversation with Brigadier "Aman" Amanullah (ret),
formerly the chief of Pakistan's military intelligence in
Sind Province, which borders India and includes Pakistan's
biggest city and a cultural center, Karachi. Aman in 53.
Currently a liaison with Benazir Bhutto and the Paki military.

I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India. Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb. ... We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities - Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. ... We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here...My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

Two hundred million dead! How's that for a death wish?

[Centurion2000]

I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India. Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb. ... We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities - Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. ... We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here...My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

The frightening thought is can you imagine the reaction of the Navy or the Air Force if they found a missile commander or submariner boomer captain with this attitude ?

[My Identity]

The leftist paradigm allows the weaker Pakis to attack India without penalty, while India must show "restraint". India appears well past restraint at this stage. Add to that the muslim 'humiliation' issue, so that the Pakis feel obligated to respond to the Indian build-up. India attacks conventionally, Pakistan respond conventionally, but is soon overwhelmed. Some Paki field commander, about to be overrun, resorts to nukes (Paki C&C is notoriously bad - Musharraf claims he has no control, doesn't know where the nukes are). India responds in kind, heavily. Total elapsed time: 3-5 minutes. The World's Shortest and Deadliest War.

If the Pakis simply backed away from the border and put away their toys, world pressure on India to do likewise would be impossible to ignore. However, that would be 'humiliating' to the Pakis, so it doesn't seem likely. The US could put its troops in harms way. That would stop the Indis, but not the Paki terrorists. If India pulls back, the Paki fundamentalists would see that as a sign of victory and redouble their efforts. A "Mexican Standoff" of sorts.

[My Identity]

can you imagine the reaction of the Navy or the Air Force

Ours or theirs?? LOL

[anu_shr]

Having gone through all posts so far on the India-Pak issue - I have a distinct feeling that there is a secret desire to use Indians to finish off the Pakistanis who Americans really think are responsible for Al Queada and Taliban. I do not think Indians are stupid enough to fall for that bait - the nukes which will fall on Pakistan will hurt India especially if the monsoon winds are blowing southwards. Hindus are by and large peaceful and will not want to kill unless their existence is threatened.

If opposite was the case - India can always strike Pakistan first and take all its nukes and cities out even before a single missile takes off from Pakistan - destroying their circuits by expolosion and EMP.

[Joe Boucher]

Personally I'd like to see a few like George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove on the American side.I am tired of all our military bigs acting like wall street punks.

[sourcery]

I hope no nuclear war occurs.

As for the Kashmir issue, I suggest the solution is to be found by recognizing that only individuals have rights, not governments or religions. Let the people of Kashmir decide for themselves what government/religion they want, and then respect their decision.

[backhoe]

Thanks- I will cross-link to this-

[buckalfa]

I find it amazing how acceptable it has become to speak about the inevitabilty of the use nuclear weapons. Is it ok to champion the right to life for the unborn on one hand and not raise a voice in protest against the possible death of millions? Conservatives and freepers share the same world as Paks and Hindi. As wishful as it may be to see these trouble spots eliminated or to solve the Islamic problem with a push of the button, can we afford to sanction this or look away as a nation under God. As Centurion2000 pointed out, the threshold for use of nukes may well become reduced, and if so, will American soil and citizens become any safer?