We will win nuclear war, says India

tools

Times story here.
What's the hold-up? Do we have to wait until CNN reporters are in place before the kick off? And which side is "Good" and which is "Evil"? And why is Dubya being allowed to "urge restraint"? Why isn't he locked in the basement or something? Is there any possibility that the "war on terrorism" gives India a handy excuse for attacking Pakistan? Who's going to make some serious moolah from arms sales over this?

Let's Roll!

SantaHoe

There are no winners in a nuclear war etc...
Don't hate... love.
/me huggles India, "there there".

Hobbes

I doubt the US will let it come to that. Otherwise a lot of their large businesses will be royally fuked if India becomes a nuclear wasteland.

Then Pakistan are also under the mistaken belief that the US will save them after their help with Afganistan.

Although the US businesses could then default on any payments to Indian businesses under force majure.

GoneShootin

hmm.

i seem to recall a quote from a certain Simpsons episode

marge to bart

"or as your uncle used to say, shoot em all and let gd sort em out"

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Does no one know the definition of "Nuclear war"? If it happens we're all f ucked, not just India/Pakistan.

DeVore

Einstein said: I do not know how they will fight the third world war, but the fourth will fought with sticks and stones. (paraphrased).

nuff said.

DeV.

Morrison

Gah...The Nuclear fallout will destroy my hair =-/

I remeber my father saying it best, when he said that if the US went to Afghanistan it would make the whole region unstable.

GoneShootin

better get my iodine tablets then

Sand

I knew somebody would find a way to blame the US for it, disregarding the fact it was a terrorist attack on the Indian parliment that sparked of this latest incident in the short but notable history of Pakistani-Indian mutually hostile relations.

And I wouldnt get as upset as some of you- Because theyve both got nukes neither side wants to use them , given they be hit back just as hard. At most it will be a few skirmishes with conventional troops along the borders and a deal that restores things to the status quo. Last I heard pakistan was taking action against the terrorists thought to be responsible for the Indian attack.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/30/200529.shtml

and

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/31/170307.shtml

Seems the hostile rhetoric has a bit to do with upcoming elections- the old nationalist card.

Typedef

Well it is a fact that the US is supporting the Military Dictatorship that is running Pakistan, and a Dictatorship is not a democracy, a Military Dictatorship that has prorouged the democratically elected Pakistani parliment and a Military Dictatorship that is involved in war posturing by two nuclear capable combatants, so the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

I mean I know the US has double standards (don't we all), but at exactly which point in time did the support of the military abrogation of the mechisma of democracy, less than equal condemnation and persecution of "state sponsored terrorism" (contrast Afghanistan and Pakistan regiemes and said "terrorism") and the support of dictatorial nuclear powers become compatible with "freedom, justice and the global war on terrorism"?

Oh wait I get it, so long as you are not opposed to the United States you aren't a terrorist, uh, better take all those Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups off of your "terrorist" lists there eh?

Sand

the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

Yes- Much like US support of the USSR in WW2- The end justifies the means.

I mean I know the US has double standards (don't we all), but at exactly which point in time did the support of the military abrogation of the mechisma of democracy, less than equal condemnation and persecution of "state sponsored terrorism" (contrast Afghanistan and Pakistan regiemes and said "terrorism") and the support of dictatorial nuclear powers become compatible with "freedom, justice and the global war on terrorism"?

Since it became practical.

EDIT
BTW Type you should start a "USA is Evil" thread. Itll probably be hilarious but not as funny as "Bert is Evil":)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand


Yes- Much like US support of the USSR in WW2- The end justifies the means.

EDIT
BTW Type you should start a "USA is Evil" thread. Itll probably be hilarious but not as funny as "Bert is Evil":)

Hey Sand you are now contridicting yourself, if the end justifies the means then by your logic "terrorism" is ok as the end that the "terrorist" is striving for justifies said "terrorists" methods ie "terrorism" of bringing that about, pretty glaring double standard wouldn't you think?

Sand

It might be if terrorism was actually effective. It isnt. Hence it does not achieve an end, hence no means can be justified. Surely a child prodigy can understand that? 30 years of violence in the north and no British pullout, decades of violence in Corsica and the Basque regisons and no French or Spanish pullouts, the WTC attacks and no US pullout . Because terrorism has no milatary value. However using Pakistan as a base has milatary value. Hence the complete rout inside about 2-3 months of the Taliban and their terrorist buddies. Milatary action *is* effective. That end justifies the means of using a dictatorship as a base.

If you want to continue your "USA is Evil" views then open a thread like I advised. It would save you having to post them in every other post regardless of its topic.

Well it is a fact that the US is supporting the Military Dictatorship that is running Pakistan, and a Dictatorship is not a democracy, a Military Dictatorship that has prorouged the democratically elected Pakistani parliment and a Military Dictatorship that is involved in war posturing by two nuclear capable combatants, so the question has to be asked, why will the US support the Pakistani regieme, a repressive Military Dictatorship that is "allegedly" the state sponsor of "so-called terrorists"? Petty self interest to facilitate easy access to bombing a third world country for the USA's show war perhaps?

Oh yeah I should probably have asked this the first time but Ill ask it now...
What the hell does all that have to do with Pakistan and India potentially going to war over a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliment? Anything at all? Especially given its the LAST thing the US needs. Or do you have a mental compulsion to blame the US for EVERYTHING?

Typedef

Ah I understand, "The end justifies the means" (so long as you aren't a "terrorist").
Em can I just say that you are being pedantic about the definition of an end. One might easily say that and end is a goal and not as you espouse "an end to conflict", ergo you are contradicting yourself.

anyway

Sand
I knew somebody would find a way to blame the US

The US is as I was attempting to point out painting itself as the defender of democracy whilst supporting a Military Dictatorship in Pakistan, a dictatorship that has sponsored "terrorists" and was/is in the process of posturing for war that could degenerate into nuclear conflict, I'm not blaming the US for the situation vis-a-vis Pakistan-India, I'm saying support of such a Military Dictatorship is contrary to many of the stated "principals" of the USA and is contrary to the most recent aims of the "global war on terrorism".

Sand

An End- Well my Oxford dictionary defines that as a "conclusion, finish, result, outcome, and ultimate state or outcome" among other things but i believe my point is made - If terrorism is a means to an end, then how can it be an end in itself? A child prodigy should be able to solve that paradox. Nothing else has been achieved by terrorism in the conflicts i mentioned- except misery, but at least its over there and not here so we dont have to confront that.

BTW me pedantic?:) Coming from the person who opened up the whole debate on how far the phrase "Ends justifies the means " can be stretched- well its a little rich.

The US is as I was attempting to point out painting itself as the defender of democracy whilst supporting a Military Dictatorship in Pakistan, a dictatorship that has sponsored "terrorists" and was/is in the process of posturing for war that could degenerate into nuclear conflict, I'm not blaming the US for the situation vis-a-vis Pakistan-India, I'm saying support of such a Military Dictatorship is contrary to many of the stated "principals" of the USA and is contrary to the most recent aims of the "global war on terrorism".

Which has nothing to do with the Indian/Pakistani incident- unless of course your saying the US had something to do with the attack on the Indian parlimentary building? - but it is a good case for opening your "USA is Evil" thread and putting it there.

BTW

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/30/200529.shtml

Hmm looks like this milatary dictatorship can at least take certain meaningful action to curb terrorism from within its borders when required to do so. I pity them however, given the decades old Kashmir dispute which is only heightened by religious animosities from the 40s, along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan- well its been a holiday destination spot for many heavily armed prayer groups. The Pakistani regime may have thought it could simply support the US and let sleeping dogs lie, but the whole thing with India has shown that to be wrong- If the demonstrations against the Pakistan support of the US is anything to go by, Musharraf has a hell of a job.

However I think hell be happier with continued US aid and getting rid of the more rabid groups- theyre a threat to him as well- rather than take on a nuclear opponent whose conventional forces vastly outnumber his own.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah I should probably have asked this the first time but Ill ask it now...
What the hell does all that have to do with Pakistan and India potentially going to war over a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliment? Anything at all?

The US invented the "war on terrorism" term which made stuff like international law redundant so it was fairly predictable that any nation with a political conflict could use the new moral code as justification for going militarily mental. The idea that Emperor Dubya is trying to tell the world they must join TWAT (the war against terrorism) or else, then give out about how Israel and India choose to combat "terrorism" is ridiculous. More than anything else TWAT gives already repressive regimes the green light to resort to even more draconian measures.

We can be sure that there are plenty of arms manufacturers in the US and elsewhere who are wetting themselves with glee over the possibility of a big bloody war between two populous nations. Death is their trade.

Sand

So youre saying that the fact the US has stated it will not tolerate terrorism means that other states are following the same reasoning?

Interestingly I saw an interview on Sky News today with an Indian representitive in London (Missed the start of the interview so didnt get his name) at about 5pm. He had interesting things to say, how this incident had little to do with Kashmir and that acts of terrorism including the attack on the Indian Parliment cannot be justified by whether the terrorists have good stories or not.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
So youre saying that the fact the US has stated it will not tolerate terrorism means that other states are following the same reasoning?

It sounds good on paper but the sad truth is that a lot of places are using the "Cry Terrorist" as reasons to attack other countries.

Pakistan is certainly arresting people it has proof of terrorism, but another country which you already weren't too fond of said "Hand over some of your people so we can execute them or else" without evidence, would any sane ruler of a country do so? Now mention of the fact that India was shelling Pakistan despite pakistan trying to deal with the Terrorists.

And is Pakistan harbouring terrorists? After all the US is allied with them on their war on terrorism?

Sand

Dont think you can say "Cry Terrorist" seeing as there was a terrorist attack (there was also an earlier attack against a provincal assembly).

Think there is two tiers in Pakistan. Musharraf has been pretty suportive of the US s anti- terrorist stance, facing down hostile mobs of militants, but those same militants hold a lot of sway withing the pakistani Intelliegence service- The Pentagon for one does not trust the Pakistani Intelligence service.

Void

I would like to point out an additional piece of information. The doom-sayers have already told us that our civilisation will be reduced to rubble after a nuclear exchange between the two belligerents. I would beg to differ...

Up until now global strategic politics has been decidedly bipolar (NATO vs Warsaw Pact). We have now entered unknown territory. Neither side possesses Intercontinental capability. Barring intervention from a third party (most notably China) the weaponry delivered will be limited to medium or small yield fission devices delivered by aircraft, artillery or intermediate range missile (similar range to the SCUD we all know from the gulf war). India has indicated that it has thermonuclear capability, but has not carried out any tests. However, once fission capability has been achieved, it is relatively easy to constuct fusion devices.

I would therefore contend that this conflict could lead to massive casualties in the Indian subcontinent but may not engulf our planet. People should understand the difference between fission weapons (Hiroshima) and thermonuclear weapons (a small Sun). Indeed certain US conventional weapons which MAY have been deployed in Afghanistan MAY have been more destructive than small yield fission devices. Certain Fuel-Air-Explosive weapons (I'm not sure if the 'Daisy-Cutter' falls into this category) have destructive capabilities measured in the kilotons.

If India did invade Pakistan, the defender WILL opt to use tactical nuclear weapons delivered by artillery to shatter troop formations. This is Pakistan's only defence against the overwhelming superiority of it's neighbour. Such weapons, used in the strategic Himalayan passes, would produce "relatively" little fallout and would achieve the desired military effect, thus making their use acceptable to the Pakistani leaders.

I apologise for my use of military jargon, but there IS such a thing as a "small nuclear weapon".

Hobbes

Void take a look at what Chernoybl did. Now imagine 20-30 of them going off in the space of a day.

Sand my comment on "Cry Terrorist" is not a sign of no terrorist, What I am saying is a lot of countries now are crying terrorist as an excuse to do questionable things and assume that it's ok because the US can do it.

Shinji

Comparing tactical nukes to Chernobyl is very misleading. I don't know the details of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, but I'll wager that it's small, dirty fission nukes. These things are messy, but very low yield, so the initial blast is small. While there's a fair bit of radioactive fallout, it tends to be concentrated, because the blast isn't sufficent to send radioactive material particularly high into the atmosphere in any large quantities.

It's not a Good Thing by any measure or means, but neither India nor Pakistan are in a position to cause any serious damage to the rest of the world by their actions. What's more worrying, really, is that they will set a precedent for the use of tac-nukes in smaller conflicts....

Lemming

Originally posted by Shinji
It's not a Good Thing by any measure or means, but neither India nor Pakistan are in a position to cause any serious damage to the rest of the world by their actions. What's more worrying, really, is that they will set a precedent for the use of tac-nukes in smaller conflicts....

What's more disturbing that they [Inda/Pakistan] will be making a certain neighbour (namely China, and to a lesser extent perhaps Russia) VERY nervous, given the proximity of any possible nuke-fight.

Given the size of the nuclear arsenal held by China (and Russia), this is by FAR not a good thing. All it will take is one misunderstanding and one of these countries will launch at an adversary. The response (of the adversary) in that case is to launch nukes at all adversaries, along with its allies doing the same, and you can get the picture from that.

Also, fallout has a habit of spreading using wind/animals. So we could well see a few cases of mutation or increased cancer rates (highly unlikely though)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Shinji
Comparing tactical nukes to Chernobyl is very misleading. I don't know the details of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, but I'll wager that it's small, dirty fission nukes. These things are messy, but very low yield, so the initial blast is small. While there's a fair bit of radioactive fallout, it tends to be concentrated, because the blast isn't sufficent to send radioactive material particularly high into the atmosphere in any large quantities.

Well it was more explaining the effects of fall out.

Radioactive material may not get high into the atmosphere, but supposing one of them decides to blow the nuke in the atmosphere?

Clintons Cat

Even if the War does not go Nuclear,hundreds of thousands will die.Niether side has the ordinance or the inclination to fight a sanitised "surgical precision" style war as witnessed in afganistan.The fact that both sides are regulary shelling each others positions before the war has even formally been announced should give an indication of how nasty this war might get.

The destabilisation of the Entire region was the sole intention of the attacks upon the kashmir regional assembly and the new dehli government buildings.The whole purpose of a terrorist act is to oblige the opponent to react in an overwhelming and unsustainable manner,to use its force against itself,in this case indias massive armed forces,which unlike pakistan has not had the sanctions imposed after breaking non prolliferation treaty lifted.
The reasoning being india has the means to enter a war with pakistan <given a 3:1 military advantage> but with international ostrication that would inevitably follow being unable to sustain the war effort,forcing a stalemate that has prevailed since partition.The reasoning of those planning the terrorist attacks being that an India brought to the brink of bankruptcy/internal collapse and international pariahood would be more willing to negotiate over the future of kashmir.

Indias isolation since the september 11 attacks and susequent reversal of US foreign policy ,[seeing pakistan upsurp indias position as Closest US ally,and seeing its own relevence marginalised to insignificance has been a bone of contention in Indias Government and media for months now]
It is a situation that if unchecked will undoubtably lead sooner or later to war between Pakistan and india,even if the present Crisis is averted.
Though how to address indias concerns without undoing much of the progress made by Mushareff in reforming Pakistan and most importantly curtailing the influence of the pakistan Interservices Intelligence(ISI) is probally one of the most delicate balancing acts of diplomacy imaginable.


May common sense prevail

.......................


Clintons Cat Amphetimine free since Sept 1st.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Dont think you can say "Cry Terrorist" seeing as there was a terrorist attack (there was also an earlier attack against a provincal assembly).

No, but while there was a terrorist attack, no proof appears to have been offered that it was definitely Pakistani in origin.

I could be wrong on this, but the Indians handed pakistan a list of names of people that they wanted handed over. These people are wanted for "crimes against humanity" by he Indians, such as terrorism, arms-smuggling, drug-trafficking, etc. However, all that Pakistan was given was a list, and an ultimatum.

This is a frowing international trend. When Sheron and his army went on thier latest anti-Palestine campaign, they made a public speech that sounded like it had been cut n pasted from Dubya's various speeches. Israel had terrorism thrust upon them. They would fight for peace, doing whatever it took. They were a peaceful people, but fearsome once angered. Terrorism had to be stamped out. Blah blah blah. They then supplied a list of people they demanded be handed over. No proof, just a list of people.

India have now done the same to Pakistan.

What worries me is the acceptance many of us appear to have for the aggrieved parties. None of them have provided proof along with their lists of names/targets. None of them have shown an inclination to negotiate. They all follow "the US approach" - demand, and threaten military action if refused. Carry out said military action when refused, justifying it under the new "fight against terrorism" banner.

Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists, but I am very wary of our international politics devolving to a "demand/threaten/attack" process, which is where it appears to be rapidly haeading.

jc

Sand

The Bill Clinton approach of crying in public, firing a few missles at some tent in a desert and hoping those bad people will have learnt their lesson seems to be an appropriate alternative- oh wait 9/11. Okay that comes across as a bit sarky, but personally I for one am glad that states have made the decision not to tolerate terrorism. Eventually states that harbour terrorists will get the idea that if they dont want to be under thret of milatary acton they should cut off aid to these terrorists. Terrorists themselves will learn that they cant "win". Much like Nazism , terrorism needs to be defeated first.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Bill Clinton approach of crying in public, firing a few missles at some tent in a desert and hoping those bad people will have learnt their lesson seems to be an appropriate alternative- oh wait 9/11. Okay that comes across as a bit sarky,

I would have used a word like "blinkered" rather than "sarky", if you are trying in any way to imply that there are only two options - those being one which is obviously ineffective, and the other being the current course of action.

I would even use a stronger term than blinkered, but I'm being polite

but personally I for one am glad that states have made the decision not to tolerate terrorism.

Absolutely. I just find it worrying that, without exception, they have levelled their demands at various nations without supplying evidence.

Taking a stand against terrorism is all well and good, but should we not be also making sure that it is a fight against terrorism. India has demanded that something like 20 people to be handed over for prosecution, without offering any proof that these people are terrorists. Israel has done the same to Palestine. America did the same to Afghanistan.

While I recognise that in most cases, the people being asked for *are* terrorists, I find it disturbing that the world is blindly jumping on to this "they called him a terrorist, so you must be wrong in harbouring him" idea.

All I'm asking for is a sembalnce of normality. If you want someone to be handed over, you supply credible reasoning and/or proof. Better still, avoid the problem entirely, and set up an international crimes court so that an international body could....oh, no, wait, the US shot that one down....

As for the ridiculous comment about Nazism, I would suggest that you take a look at neo-Nazism around the world Sand, and tell me exactly how this has been defeated?

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey


Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists, but I am very wary of our international politics devolving to a "demand/threaten/attack" process, which is where it appears to be rapidly haeading.

jc

No,no,no bonkey, you missed the point. Anyone who disagrees with said ultimatums is a communist/terrorist/non-us-national to be put on trial without jury, this is the way "free and fair" democracies espouse their freedoms via foreign policy, and to find fault with it makes you a communist arts student

Sand

Given the fact that Afghanistan became terrorist unfriendly inside about two months the current strategy is extremely effective. What other option is as quick or as effective in dealing with intransigent regimes like the Taliban who harbour terrorists? International courts to try a crime that was committed in America? Whats wrong with the American system?

Bonkey listen to what your saying- Your saying you agree the list India has provided is accurate- Yet at the same time your saying India isnt justified in expecting to bring these terrorists to justice? Why?

Nazism was defeated utterly milatarily, then came the political solution of denazification of Germany and trials of Nazi leaders. Its important to note the timing of the political solution , after the complete milatary victory. As for neo- nazis theyre just powerless fringe groups, their right to free speech already prevented. So unless you want to bring back political re-education and thought police...let em spout their rubbish- its not like anybody but fools listen to them.

Hobbes

International courts to try a crime that was committed in America? Whats wrong with the American system?

prehaps it has something to do with..

a) Al-Quida (OBL especially) are wanted by the UN for crimes against humanity.

b) The US has is for-going a trial with some of the people and going straight to kill on sight.

c) The UN does not have the death penalty.

Actually I see the UK have said if they get to OBL first they will only hand him over to the US on strict conditions. The UK isn't too pleased with the way the US is conducting it's tribunals.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bonkey listen to what your saying- Your saying you agree the list India has provided is accurate- Yet at the same time your saying India isnt justified in expecting to bring these terrorists to justice? Why?

Sand.... I'll copy and paste what I wrote originally , and I'll even add some italics so that you dont miss the little nuances of what it is I wrote...

Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists

and

While I recognise that in most cases, the people being asked for *are* terrorists,

Nopw, having refreshed your memory slightly, could you possiby point out to me where I agree that the list India has provided is accurate.

As for neo- nazis theyre just powerless fringe groups, their right to free speech already prevented.

What? Neo Nazis in the US are denied the rights guaranteed to them under the First Amendment?

In Europe, sadly, this is true. Neo Nazis are denied basic human rights, as is anyone who has even the remotest positive connection to Fascism or Nazi-ism. While I disagree with their political ideals, I think it is ridiculous that they be denied the right to run for parliament, and/or be denied their legally elected positions should they garner enough public support.

So unless you want to bring back political re-education and thought police...let em spout their rubbish- its not like anybody but fools listen to them.

It doesnt matter if only fools listen to them - are you aware of the agitation these people cause in many European areas? Are you aware of the growing political support their offshoots have?

The world has no shortage of fools to listen to them. Are you advocating that we deny certain people the basic right to self-determination because of their political beliefs - democracy as long as you vote for acceptable parties? Thats what we are descending into. These people are powerless because the moral majority denies these people their basic rights, but doesnt kick up a fuss about it, because, well, we're the moral majority so we must be right.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Void
India has indicated that it has thermonuclear capability, but has not carried out any tests. However, once fission capability has been achieved, it is relatively easy to constuct fusion devices.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html

TEST		DEVICE			DATE		YIELD 		YIELD
							claimed		reported 

Shakti 1	Thermonuclear device	11 May 1998	43-60 kiloton	12-25 kiloton 

The "yield" figures may be inaccurate as three devices were detonated simultaneously.

A "daisy cutter" is not a bomb. It is a 3-foot long piece of 'pipe' fitted to the impact fuse on a bomb to make it detonate above ground level. The objective is to damage material and personnel over a larger area. In this picture it is the 'pipe' on the right hand side with the safety pin attached (safety pin has red ribbon attached). The phrase "daisy cutter" has been used in reference to the BLU-82 bomb (pictured), but is not strictly correct. It would be like calling a Dell computer a "Pentium 4" when "Pentium 4" only describes one of the (important) features. The BLU-82 uses aluminium powder mix as an explosive (as used in the booster rockets on the space shuttle - I suspect a similar ammonium perchlorate / aluminum mix). It is too big a bomb to use Fuel Air Explosive (FAE), which have size limitations.

Victor

Originally posted by Void
Such weapons, used in the strategic Himalayan passes, would produce "relatively" little fallout and would achieve the desired military effect, thus making their use acceptable to the Pakistani leaders.

Your use of the word "relative" is dangerous. One could say that the wars in the former-Yugoslavia have been relatively harmless - 'only' 300,000 people died, but that would hardly represent the situation on the ground. Even today, there are new cases of cancer from the radiation of nuclear tests in the 1950s among people remote from the explosions. Of Australian medical personnel who were based in Nagasaki in 1946 (6 months after the bomb) 75% subsequantly died of premature cancer.

Originally posted by Void
I apologise for my use of military jargon, but there IS such a thing as a "small nuclear weapon".

Nuclear weapons with yields of as low a 250 tons equivalent of TNT have been developed. On the scale of things, the largest IRA bomb has probably been in the order of 0.5 to 1.0 tons (many IRA bombs were improvised explosives), but the largest nuclear weapons were in the order of 20 MT (20,000,000 tons of TNT equivalent). Remember though that explosions work on a root mean square basis and at a given distance increasing the bomb 4 times will only double the overpressure.

bonkey

Another issue which is being overlooked is the message that use of nuclear weapons would send.

India and Pakistan have some nice friendly nearby neighbours (Russia, China, and others) who would not feel particularly happy knowing that nearby nations would countenance the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.

The net effect would be increased tensions (at the very least) in the Asian continent, possible escalating beyond that to a full-blown cold-war of a scale to rival the East/West one from Europe, the US and the USSR up to a decade ago.

The world would effectively between those who condemned nations for the use of nuclear weapons, and those who defend their right to have done so. While the US could easily condemn them, nations with smaller arsenals could easily see this as justification both of having nuclear "defense" capabilities, and also as a precendent for considering their use.

We're talking major economies being polarised, perhaps to the point of trade breaking down, and the global village splitting into multiple tribes.

The size of the weapons is irrelevant. While a daisy cutter is believed to be as powerful as many of the weapons held by these two powers, the fact remains that it is a clean weapon. The nukes these nations hold will be more likely akin to Little Man and Fat Boy than the comparatively clean tacNukes which the US currently has on its cruise missiles. The use of such weapons with their long-term radiation issues is a horrifying prospect, and it would send reprecussions throughout the world.

India is full of bravado. No-one can win a nuclear exchange, and ultimately a generation of the planet's population would pay the price in one way or another.

jc

Victor

Bonkey, there are no nuclear weapons on cruise missiles, because of the INF treaty

The BLU-82 is substantially smaller than even the smallest nuclear weapon. It weights about 15 tonnes (weight for weight, I imagine it's explosive effects are on par or slightly better than TNT, it's just much cheaper than military grade explosives). Meanwhile the smallest American nuclear weapon is approximately 250-300 tonnes explosive equivalent.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

amp

If Boards.ie ever goes to war against another nation I vote Victor head of Weapons Procurement.

amp - who is in the market for an Exocet or two if you've any going spare Vic.

Victor

Originally posted by amp
If Boards.ie ever goes to war against another nation

Have 'we' declared nationhood? Or should we?

Sand

Bonkey- Okay *mostly* accurate. Given Indian intelligence has a better idea who these people are then you or I and given their own unwillingness to let some patsy take the blame when the real terrorist gets away Im willing to bet *all* of the people on that list are terrorists.

Bonkey you kinda contradict yourself in your rush to disagree with me re. neo nazis. I share your view that free speech should not be impeded - however the power/mentality of the left is such that they can prevent free speech they do not agree with it and not see the hypocrisy of their position. However you then go on to say neo nazis stir up lots of trouble and there are plenty of fools to listen to them (Unless the socialists have got to them first:) ) - implying you believe there should be some action to prevent them "spouting their rubbish".

Hobbes:
The UN is unlikely to capture Bin Laden, So theyll have to wait their turn.

It might be best if Bin Laden wasnt taken alive, prevent all those hostage takings and attacks that would accompany his trial.

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

As for the UK theyll do what their told like always.

And as Ive already said, I believe the danger of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India to be highly over rated.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
The UN is unlikely to capture Bin Laden, So theyll have to wait their turn.

But another country may and hand him over to the UN rather then the US?

It might be best if Bin Laden wasnt taken alive, prevent all those hostage takings and attacks that would accompany his trial.

Actually I think he should be taken alive. In peoples rush to kill him you will leave a lot of unanswered questions. It hasn't been proved he is the sole mastermind.

And as Ive already said, I believe the danger of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India to be highly over rated.

I don't. Their culture is very different to western culture so it is quite possible they don't share the same outlook that nukes=bad. India basically said it's willing to commit genocide to reach it's goal so why would a few nukes matter?

As for the list, just handing over a list is not enough. You have to show evidence of the people on the list. If a country that had strained relations on you handed you a shopping list and said "Hand them over or we'll nuke you" what do you think any sane persons response would be?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bonkey- Okay *mostly* accurate. Given Indian intelligence has a better idea who these people are then you or I and given their own unwillingness to let some patsy take the blame when the real terrorist gets away Im willing to bet *all* of the people on that list are terrorists.

My concern is more the possibility that there is one or more names on that list which should nto be there. Not patsys replacing legit "targets", but rather people India want out of the way, who may not be terrorists in any way shape or form.

This is *probably* not the case, but like I said, the idea of not suplying sufficient evidence with your ultimatums is a very dangerous one which I find disturbing but which the press seem to largely ignore....

Bonkey you kinda contradict yourself in your rush to disagree with me re. neo nazis.

<snip>

However you then go on to say neo nazis stir up lots of trouble and there are plenty of fools to listen to them (Unless the socialists have got to them first:) ) - implying you believe there should be some action to prevent them "spouting their rubbish".

Absdolutely not - sorry if I came across as unclear. I believe 100% in allowing these people their platform to speak on, and as long as they receive public support, then they are as entitled as the next man to be elected.

You give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.

Incitement to hatred / violence is a valid reason to arrest someone, or to prevent them from exercising their freedom of speech. In my eyes, membership of an organisation is not.

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

Now this is ridiculous. First off, not every American state has the death penalty, so implying that Americans broadly support the death penalty seems a bit facetious.

On the other hand, I would admit that a large number of Americans are likely to say (if asked) that they oppose the death penalty in general, but that it should apply to Osama bin Laden.

Secondly, I think you will find that internationally, more people oppose the death penalty than support it. Are you going to tell us that all of these people do not believe in justice becuase they're unwilling to administer the ultimate punishment?

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

Not only does the UN lack have the death penalty, they aren't a judicial body, so they can't hear a case or pass sentence :P The ICJ is perhaps what you were referring to- and they do employ the death penalty, though it hasn't been applied strictly since Nuremberg. And saying that Americans equate the death penalty with justice is suuuuch a crock I won't even go into it. On second thought, maybe I will, seeing as how I'm one of the many Americans who oppose it. Only 22 states have a death penalty on the books, and only 14 of them have applied that punishment since 1812. At the federal level it only seriously exists for treason and terrorism. To somehow infer that the public broadly supports it as a judicious punishment is stretching it a bit.

My own opinion isn't that bin Laden should be put to death- I personally believe that he should have a televised, openly conducted trial, where the full extent of the charges against him can be completely constructed. Sensitive information or evidence can be submitted to the bench in the form of sealed affidavits sub judice (for the eyes of the court). After a life sentence without parole, he should be paraded through the streets of Washington dressed like a clown, his back plastered with "Kick me" signs, and an open invitation for children to point and laugh at him...rotten fruit & veg hurling should also be encouraged to relieve the stress and nervous tension inherent on Capitol Hill. Seems a fair punishment to me...perhaps just life imprisonment then?

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
You give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.

Incitement to hatred / violence is a valid reason to arrest someone, or to prevent them from exercising their freedom of speech. In my eyes, membership of an organisation is not.

This is at risk of providing manouevre space for organisations like the IRA, Al Quada, Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia, each with a significant criminal element that outweight any legitimate element.

Sand

I believe in unrestricted free speech myself. Should somebody wish to believe something utterly stupid and try to persuade others of it (Communism or some similar left wing utopia for example) then fair enough. In a debate such limited views are taken apart and shown for what they are. Remember that court case with the nazi apologist in london last year, name of Irving or something. I remember his talk in Cork being attacked and disrupted by the Judean Peoples Front as they tried to prevent him airing his views. Silly fools as they are they didnt realise the best way to defeat him was to listen to his views and then counter them as was done in that London courtroom where Irvings crdibility was shattered and he was shown for the fool he was/is.

Only 14/22 states? Well thats a insignificant amount then. Whether the majority of americans disagree or agree on the death penalty is most likely a moot point given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Hobbes:
Its the US s war in afghanistan Hobbes, evidenced by the fact that its the US that takes the peacenik heat for it. The British might have some SAS or similar there but the US will keep them well away from any area where they belive Bin Laden to be and the $25 million reward should tantilise the average Afghan warlord who is entirely self interested. Hence it is most likely the US will get Bin Laden.

And Id hand them over if i was threatened with nukes given m sane and theyre terrorist scum:)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Only 14/22 states? Well thats a insignificant amount then. Whether the majority of americans disagree or agree on the death penalty is most likely a moot point given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Are you seriously suggesting that being founded as a republic instantly mandates a legislated death sentence? I've never heard such drivel. You must be forgetting France, Germany and Italy then. All of which have either been founded as, or converted to federal republics. In fact, the US government model was strongly influenced by that of France. Yet France no longer has the death penalty- and remains a republic, of federated states, and sub-federated districts. My point is, that out of the states in the US (50 in total), only 14 actively pursue the death penalty as a punishment, and none as frequently as Texas, where it is an instrument of policy rather than justice. Anti-federalist doctrine, that flaming sword of the small-government champions- has certainly done more harm, and perpetuated more miscarriages of justice than any other political force in modern history. Just read Chief Justice William Rhenquist's "Review of Modern American Jurisprudence" (published by Yale University Press, legal department) for the details.

Inconsistencies in state policy lead to ridiculous parodies of justice and endless jurisdiction battles. Let us say I shoot Joe Bloggs in California (which hasn't the death penalty) and I then flee to Texas- state police there can charge me under the state penal code and the prosecution may then line me up for the injection table. A classic example of state policies, drafted with higher political ambition in mind, interfering with the basic course of criminal prosecution.

Sand, no one is depriving you of your right to express a valid opinion regarding the application of the death penalty. But to assert that a federated republic must in all fairness carry the death penalty may create the impression of ignorance, however undeserved.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Clearly my understanding is lacking here. My understanding of a republic does not preclude Ireland from being one. Furthermore, I dont see how Republicanism and Democracy are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be implying.

Can you clarify what a republic is, why Ireland isnt one, and why a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive?

I'm not trying to be smart here - I genuinely dont see how you distinguish bwtween the two...

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

re·pub·lic (r-pblk)
n.

1a) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
1b) A nation that has such a political order.

2a) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2b)A nation that has such a political order.

My money's on 2a, so I don't see how Eire fails to qualify as a republic. After all, the US, France, Italy, Germany and South Africa all started off as consitutional monarchies, ruled by bicameral parliamentary democracies, with some sort of monarch acting as the head of state. A revolution or two later, with perhaps a war thrown in, and you have a republic, no longer answerable in any manner to the monarch.

As far as the difference between a democracy and a republic goes, it's not so much a difference as a micro-cosm. A republic is a type of democratic government- as are constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy and plutocratic consularship (though certainly less democratic than the above).

Occy

Sand

I wouldnt say democracy and a republic are mutually exsclusive. Merely that a democracy is extremely centralised with any decisions of any importance been taken in the capital, using the populations overall will as the guide. France is a good example given its high level of centralised decision making, Ireland to is also very centralised.

Republic by contrast keeps a lot of decision making on a provincal/state/local level. The opinion of the overall population is unimportant, compared to the opinion of the local population. Witness the death penalty- So long as the majority of Texans want it, it will remain. I believe a republic is more effective than centralised democracy in determining what the people want, which is the goal of good government.

bonkey

Sand - where are those definitions coming from?

By your definition, the US is probably the only republic in the world, which seems like a very narrow definition of a republic.

jc

<edit>
I've jsut realised that Switzerland would also qualify. Silly me - I live here after all
</edit>

Sand

There arent that many genuine democracies in the world to begin with Bonkey:)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Republic by contrast keeps a lot of decision making on a provincal/state/local level. The opinion of the overall population is unimportant, compared to the opinion of the local population. Witness the death penalty- So long as the majority of Texans want it, it will remain. I believe a republic is more effective than centralised democracy in determining what the people want, which is the goal of good government.

Nope, you are describing a federalist system, not a Republican one. I'm not saying a federation can't be a Republic, but a federation delegates down and is decentralised as you point out, however wether or not a country has a federal or centralised system of governance it is a Republic if

a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

So there you go Ireland is a Republic as is France not a Federal government, but a centralised Republic.
/Unless Prodi has his way.