Posted on 06/04/2002 8:54:43 AM PDT by Cascadians
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
If this doesn't send the sleeples stampeding, what will?
Sales of KI and K103 may go up ...
Bull, what do we know of these people's security situation when we can't even have a security of our own.
Quoting studies from the ultra-liberal National Resource Defense Council is bound to get inflated accounts of casualties and ecological damage.
And the suggestion that a nuclear exchange would cause a worldwide depression is laughable. It might cause a squeeze in textile imports, but that's about it.
I guess stories like this help sell newspapers.
But we've been reading an enormous amount of articles about this situation and this article is not at all out of line with many other serious assessments from serious sources.
Not in downtown Bombay, though. Location, location, location!
SO TRUE...
how's BARETTA doin?
OTOH, that would be good news for the rest of the world, since the more radiation that is kept in India and Pakistan means less to take the round the world trip. OTOH, I wonder how a near simultaneous detonation of several nukes will affect weather patterns? That much heat being generated would likely affect the weather patterns for the region.
Tuor
Wages in the IT sector would go up, too.
Tuor
Yes, that definitely would be a consequence.
One of the first things we thought of.
Sometimes articles will hint that there have been tabletop exercises and plans to "secure" the nukes if the government there were to fall apart.
It certainly adds to the dicyness considering all the articles stating the terrorists have relocated to Pakistan and Kashmir.
India first tested it's "Peaceful Nuclear Device" in the late '70's, I believe. The resulting US diplomatic backlash nearly drove them into the arms of the waiting Soviets.
India, a largely Hindu nation, controls two-thirds of Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim, as is Pakistan. More than 30,000 people have died in Kashmir since 1989, when Muslim guerrillas began seeking independence.
The fighting in Kashmir has been going on a lot longer than since 1989. Why does USA Today have the need to compress history?
I have to wonder if the Kashmiris really want to be a part of Pakistan or an independent state like it, since, like most every other Muslim-run state, it is a backwater hellhole awash in self made poverty that is the single greatest cause of unrest in this country. Ever look at the crap that comes out of Pakistan? Look at some Pakistani tools for instance. They make the worst items to come out of China look like the best Craftsman has to offer!!
Secondly, unlike Pakistan, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and more coexist relatively peacefully. The smart Muslims are staying put in India precisely because they know that they would have a significantly lower standard of living in Pakistan under Islamic rule, if that. (All they have to do is look at the formerly Taliban-ruled Afghanistan for an almost comically extreme look at the epitome of an Islamic society, and the look of joy on the faces of the liberated Afghanis). Look at the quality of education in the two countries. India produces programmers and mathematicians of the highest quality. Pakistan produces Muslim terrorists. Pakistan is a breeding ground of terrorists because of their igorance and poverty. You don't see bands of militant Hindus or Buddhists making raids across the Line of Control to murder and maim innocent victims in the hopes of starting a major war, do you? Nope, just the "ever-persecuted" Muslims who are convinced that their way is the only way. All others must die.
India has more to lose than Pakistan as well in both terms of overall damage. Fallout will travel west to east with the prevailing winds, so targeting anything in Pakistan will mean that India will have to pay a price regardless of the outcome of the war. Pakistan is desperate. They know that they will lose a ground war just like the last two times, and will lose a nuclear war as well. Their primary goal is likely to be to threaten India and keep them from invading their country (probably the best thing that could happen to them) and/or opting out of Kashmir and stave off a war they cannot win.
Lastly, I have to at least hope that Musharraf is smart enough to realize this. Oddly enough, he is the least problematic leader of Pakistan that the world has seen in a while, and we can only hope that he will show enough brains to stay in control of a non-radioactive country.
This is definitely a major concern. Here is an excerpt from an AP news article just now being reported on Fox News that addresses those very concerns:
U.S. Strongly Urges Americans to Leave South Asia
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
WASHINGTON — The State Department is stepping up its advice to Americans in India and Pakistan to leave the two countries as tensions between the two nuclear-armed states remain high.
New travel warnings due to be issued later Tuesday will strongly urge Americans to depart, a U.S. official told The Associated Press. This is a tougher approach than past statements urging Americans to consider leavin the same last week.
Secretary of State Colin Powell is sending his deputy to South Asia and pledging "a full-court diplomatic press" to avert war between India and Pakistan.
Curbing Pakistani Islamic extremists from infiltrating disputed Kashmir and attacking Indian soldiers is the first priority of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who are traveling separately to India and Pakistan in coming days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.