[Thorn]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmir.attack/index.html

not good.. not good at all...

[Bri_Dog]

Only worry if they actualy go and do it.

[TheCelestialOne]

Uh-oh... That's bad... Real bad... Really bad... It could have effects that would reach all over the world in time.

[neo_hermes]

this India-pakistan thing is going to get worst before it gets better. i don't think it rumsfield will have any effect on this one bit.

[beatspete]

Note the title of the artical "Nuke war would kill millions" - no ****?

pete

[Redfang]

[CP5670]

I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the combined population of the two nations, which numbers over a billion, and whenever two nations of relatively equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi ) I doubt there will be any nuclear aggression though, as the Indians have always been the cautious types and they will probably go in and disarm the Pakistani nukes, which only number around 20, before attempting anything.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by CP5670
I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the the combined population of the two nations, which reaches over a billion, and whenever two nations of equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi )

Are you serious?

17 million?  That's excluding radiation poisoning, which would probably effect most of the region - probably even Europe too.  (Chernobyl irradiated some parts of Scotland, albeit not to a life-threatening degree).

not to mention that China has an interest in Kashmir - what happens if they decided to take action whilst the 2 sides have crippled each other?  What happens if the Us or its allies decide to react?

A nuclear war kills the world.  simple as that.  not only in the direct effects, but the geo-political impact of sustained nuclear weapons.  Once one country crosses that line, it is no longer a barrier.

[phreak]

aldo's right on this one.  China has hundreds of nukes and the only thing that stops them from using them is their supposed no-first-strike policy.

[sarcasm]A nuclear war will bring our nuclear arsenal down to the levels that bush and putin wanted in relatively short order[/sarcasm]

[CP5670]

Are you serious?

17 million? That's excluding radiation poisoning, which would probably effect most of the region - probably even Europe too. (Chernobyl irradiated some parts of Scotland, albeit not to a life-threatening degree).

Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)

not to mention that China has an interest in Kashmir - what happens if they decided to take action whilst the 2 sides have crippled each other? What happens if the Us or its allies decide to react?

I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this. The only reason that India is going for this is due to a number of terrorist attacks in recent years, which is similar to the US policy; the poverty ratings in Pakistan are higher than even that of India, the land is useless for agriculture, and the only reason that there is any order is because of the military rule, so a conquest would not yield much.

A nuclear war kills the world. simple as that. not only in the direct effects, but the geo-political impact of sustained nuclear weapons. Once one country crosses that line, it is no longer a barrier.

That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have that no-strike policy.

[sarcasm]A nuclear war will bring our nuclear arsenal down to the levels that bush and putin wanted in relatively short order[/sarcasm]

lol

[TheCelestialOne]

Originally posted by CP5670


Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)



I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this.



That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have said that they will only launch nukes if the other side does first.

1) Doesn't mean much!? If you would live in the effected area you wouldn't think like that!

2) Politics... Can't predict it.

3) Eeeerrr...

[CP5670]

1) Doesn't mean much!? If you would live in the effected area you wouldn't think like that!

It all ties in to philosophy; just like I said in the other thread, all these ideas are holistic and tie into each other. I am not thinking from the primitive scale of the personal human here, but from the point of the entire "machine" of human civilization.

2) Politics... Can't predict it.

You can assign events some sort of probabilities, though.

[TheCelestialOne]

I gotta go so :

I do not agree with them but I do respect your ideas.

[CP5670]

Okay, that's cool. I also have some respect for the opposing ideas here, since I can definitely see what is to be gained by the Gandhi system, but I think that there are more benefits in a midline position.

[Eternal One]

Originally posted by CP5670
I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the combined population of the two nations, which numbers over a billion, and whenever two nations of relatively equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi ) I doubt there will be any nuclear aggression though, as the Indians have always been the cautious types and they will probably go in and disarm the Pakistani nukes, which only number around 20, before attempting anything.

Hah. I bet your "subjective opinion" would be changed if you would happen to be one of those 17 million.

Nuclear weapons are political weapons that don't even serve their purpose on the political climate of today's world. They are not conventional military weapons and not to be used as such, especially between nations that act like two children fighting over a candy bar.

[CP5670]

Hah. I bet your "subjective opinion" would be changed if you would happen to be one of those 17 million.

You really don't know my whole philosophy, do you? Just wait for ten years. And besides, if this is the case, I wonder why most Indians and a moderate number of Pakistanis are much more fanatical about this. I don't think there is much to be gained out of a total war system, but I think that the same could be said about absolute pacifism as far as today's world goes, and considering the history of the two nations, there is sufficient reason to warrant an armed conflict of some sort (probably not a nuclear war, but even that would not be all that bad), and one that will definitely benefit many other parts of the world in the long run.

Nuclear weapons are political weapons that don't even serve their purpose on the political climate of today's world. They are not conventional military weapons and not to be used as such, especially between nations that act like two children fighting over a candy bar.

Well, who defines what they "are to be used" as and what not? That changes with the world conditions.

[Eternal One]

Originally posted by CP5670


You really don't know my whole philosophy, do you? Just wait for ten years. And besides, if this is the case, I wonder why most Indians and a moderate number of Pakistanis are much more fanatical about this.

No, I don't know your philosophy. I didn't say I do. I do know my own philosophy, and I know that it contradicts wildly with yours

Indians and Pakistans are fanatic, yes. That's what I referred to them as children. Think and reason has left them long time on this matter. They don't understand that one war would do nothing but lead to another. Not to mention the overall effects of usage of nuclear weapons.

Well, who defines what they "are to be used" as and what not? That changes with the world conditions.

Of course nobody defines them. Political weapons they currently are, that is a commonly accepted fact. What else can a weapon that has been used only twice in the history be but political? India and Pakistan can of course see it other way, but that doesn't justify possible usage of them. They can fight their silly wars just fine without them.

[Dark_4ce]

"Make love, not war..."

:thepimp:

Seriously, war aint a fun thing, no matter what the scale is. I mean look at human civilization as a whole. For over 5000 years we've been at war with each other. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" so to speak. We progress in science, but not in culture. We just learn new ways to kill each other, instead of new ways to live with one another. So, what am I saying? I dunno, maybe that after 5000 years we should blow ourselves up. God knows how many chances we had to fix things, and then blew them off. I really don't care anymore how the world will go, cause if there'll ever be a nuke war, atleast most of us won't really suffer that much, cause we'll be burned to a crisp before we know it. But I aint a pacifist. Just a realist. Bah, I'll get back to playing some Freespace.

[CP5670]

No, I don't know your philosophy. I didn't say I do.

Well, I could say that you implied you did by saying that I would think differently if I lived elsewhere, but never mind that. As I said before, I am no warhawk, but I don't like the Gandhi principle either, as we have seen how well that worked in the real world.

Of course nobody defines them. Political weapons they currently are, that is a commonly accepted fact. What else can a weapon that has been used only twice in the history be but political? India and Pakistan can of course see it other way, but that doesn't justify possible usage of them. They can fight their silly wars just fine without them.

Yeah, the situation does not justify them just yet from a world perspective, but it is not going to do much even if they are used compared to the potential benefits.

Seriously, war aint a fun thing, no matter what the scale is. I mean look at human civilization as a whole. For over 5000 years we've been at war with each other. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" so to speak. We progress in science, but not in culture. We just learn new ways to kill each other, instead of new ways to live with one another. So, what am I saying?

I think that will change over the course of the next few millennia, seeing as we subtly headed towards a world government, and in the very distant future, a combined physical system. Also, our prehistoric ancestors fought wars as individuals, while the wars of today are fought by cohesive groups formed out of ideologies.

Bah, I'll get back to playing some Freespace.

That's always a good idea.

[Dark_4ce]

Originally posted by CP5670


I think that will change over the course of the next few millennia, seeing as we subtly headed towards a world government, and in the very distant future, a combined physical system. Also, our prehistoric ancestors fought wars as individuals, while the wars of today are fought by cohesive groups formed out of ideologies.
 

Yeah, that may be true, but it still proves the point of "The more things change, the more they stay the same". See, we are STILL FIGHTING. Just differently. The key is to STOP fighting.

But yes... It'll happen one day. When people discover the therapeutic properties of Freespace...