India/Pakistan war a good thing?

hypersonic762 · #1 01-01-2002, 12:51 AM

Basically, I look at it this way. As of know we believe that Osama may be in Pakistan. At the same time, Pakistan and India are getting ready to stage the world's first nuclear war. If India fires a nuke at Pakistan, it could easily kill bin Laden, and if that doesn't get him, it would spread fallout into Afghanistan. Granted, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, etc. might strike back at India and put the entire middle east in a nuclear winter. What do you think?

Jokercoaster · #2 01-01-2002, 12:55 AM

I think that the war is bad and hopefully tensions will calm down soon. The last thing we need is a nuclear war to settle.

hypersonic762 · #3 01-01-2002, 12:58 AM

War is bad, but in war you use every advantage you got, especially when its not at your expense.

Andy Rathe · #4 01-01-2002, 09:42 AM

War is never good. Especially as both sides have nuclear weapons. They're still a long way from using them, but it makes things that much more worrying.

hypersonic762 · #5 01-01-2002, 07:09 PM

I AM NOT SUPPORTING THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEPONS
it is just a very likely possibility!

medusa7787 · #6 01-01-2002, 08:53 PM

hey if many nukes are detonated the fallout might be strong enough to reach u.s allies and war is never good

Inferno · #7 01-01-2002, 11:52 PM

No one knows what kind of power setting off multiple nukes at the same time. Sending an atomic bomb to Pakistan may kill bin Laden, but it would also injure or kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The last think we want in our world is nuclear war. No one knows what might come from all that energy being released at the same time. No war is a good think, but nuclear war is the worst. Personally, I don't think either side will launch a single nuke because they are too afraid of what might happen. We learned a valuable lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is like the Cold War, but it involves much weaker countries. Both sides are too scared to attack, afraid of what the other might do in retaliation. If nuclear weapons are used, then this may be the start of a third world war. I highly doubt it, but I bet people also doubted World War I and World War II would even happen.

birderboy · #8 01-02-2002, 10:28 AM

Hey, if India decides to try and kill bin Laden with a nuke, can I press the button? Heehee, button!

Just kidding. This is pretty serious, I'd never do that. Much as India and Pakistan hate each other, there's no way they're gonna use nukes any time soon. Using a nuke would spark international tension against them. The only reason we used the nuke was because an amphibious invasion of Japan would be absolute suicide, and it was felt that using the nuke was the only possible solution, after looking at many others. India and Pakistan are nowhere near that point yet.

Steve Batchelor · #9 01-02-2002, 10:43 AM

I can't believe the way in which some of you are talking about this. Just because it is in a country the other side of the world to you does not lesten its effect. I don't wish to start a flame war here but please just think about what this should mean if war does break out. Desperation may drive one side to do something stupid in this kind of conflict, let us all hope that it never comes to that. In the meantime, please let's not be passe and flippant about this topic.

Aaron · #10 01-02-2002, 01:18 PM

Nuclear bombs were only used once in wartime, in 1945. Pakistan and India wouldn't be stupid enough to start a nuclear war. Inferno is right, even if they did start a nuclear war (we're all hoping they won't), and even if a nuclear weapon did kill bin Laden, then thousands of other people would die. I know people who live in Hiroshima, and several of their relatives were killed when the A-bomb destroyed the city in 1945. Let's not go through all of that again.

antfarm007 · #11 01-04-2002, 05:19 PM

I would say that a nuclear weapon will probably never be used in a war, unless its some dumbass muslim extremists

Originally posted by Franklin D. Roosevelt

Quote:

The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Fear Itself

**Marcus** · #12 01-05-2002, 01:52 AM

War is never a good thing. I dont think the countries will dare start a nuclear was because it would only end up with all of their people dead.

Fear Rules Those Weak Enough To Except It
-Disaster Transport

mrk468zz · #13 01-05-2002, 08:36 PM

actually, a nuclear war between pakistan and india isn't super-unlikely. its certainly not likely, but it'd be dangerous to totally discount the possibility of a state-initiated nuclear war. regional nuclear wars are entirely possible so long as either pakistan or india feel that war is imminent and inevitable. in such a case, one would attempt to pre-empt the strike power of the other. the more likely to attempt this is pakistan (though ironically they have fewer deliverable warheads). the danger is that a pakistani-indian nuclear war is not a MAD scenario like the the americans and the soviets in the cold war. hence, it makes rational sense to use a nuclear weapon theoretically. its a dangerous but real possibility.

Anaconda · #14 01-12-2002, 07:37 PM

Nuclear War won't be a good thing. The only reason countries have nukes is because of MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction.
That means that if one country fires their nukes at another to destory it, the country being attacked can destroy the attacker.
On the other hand, if one country had nukes and no other country did, then that country could rule the world, so while nukes are a good thing to have, they aren't a good thing to use.
Also, the state of our nuclear weapons is DEATHCON4, which is one thing away from using them. And yes, MAD is most definitely guaranteed because Pakistan doesn't have to deliver their weapons that far (sorry mrk, but when two countries neighbor each other you don't need that well-developed of a delivery system).

mrk468zz · #15 01-12-2002, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anaconda
Also, the state of our nuclear weapons is DEATHCON4, which is one thing away from using them. And yes, MAD is most definitely guaranteed because Pakistan doesn't have to deliver their weapons that far (sorry mrk, but when two countries neighbor each other you don't need that well-developed of a delivery system).

um, my point had nothing to do with delivery capability. its obvious that both countries have that ability--if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation.
my point is was that neither country has very many nuclear warheads, their locations are known, and they are clustered together. this nullifies MAD because theoretically one country can use their nukes to take out the other country's (this is possible due to the low # of nukes) before they have a chance to launch (thanks to close proximity). i point to pakistan as doing this simply because they are less stable (traditionally) and more likely to view a pre-strike scenario as adventageous.

and DEFCON4 puts us three away from nuclear war, not one. DEFCON counts down from 5, where 5 is no perceived threat.