Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Possibility of war between India and Pakistan Options · View
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:46:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
Tensions between India and Pakistan rose on Tuesday with the killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops. An unspecified number of Pakistani troops entered the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), after which a firefight ensued in which the two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated by Pakistan Army.India lashes Pakistan after this deadly encounter.
technix
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:50:30 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/26/2012
Posts: 17
Location: Municipality of Shanghai, China
I do not hope any confliction in this area, since my country (China) neighbours them. However, there is no way for us to stop them if war broke out, and all we can do is to run for our dear lives.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:03:12 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
technix wrote:
I do not hope any confliction in this area, since my country (China) neighbours them. However, there is no way for us to stop them if war broke out, and all we can do is to run for our dear lives.


yes nobody dares stop them if war starts
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:54:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Who would even want to step-between those two? I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager if it comes to a full-on war, it wouldn't be too long before the nukes come out.

SITTING
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:53:57 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 711
Location: Leeds, United Kingdom
I don't think it'll come to war. I think India and Pakistan need to really clear up all their old troubles, split Kashmir down the middle (i'm guessing it ain't that easy) and show a united front, or else they'll just be like this forever.
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:33:16 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
MrNudiePants wrote:
Who would even want to step-between those two? I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager if it comes to a full-on war, it wouldn't be too long before the nukes come out.

India has already declared that they won't use nukes first
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:34:00 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
SITTING wrote:
I don't think it'll come to war. I think India and Pakistan need to really clear up all their old troubles, split Kashmir down the middle (i'm guessing it ain't that easy) and show a united front, or else they'll just be like this forever.


it is not that easy as you said my friend
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:49:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
awake_ wrote:
Tensions between India and Pakistan rose on Tuesday with the killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops. An unspecified number of Pakistani troops entered the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), after which a firefight ensued in which the two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated by Pakistan Army.India lashes Pakistan after this deadly encounter.


That sort of event happens quite regularly and the job of diplomats is to de-escalate the situation. They can lead to war but usually only when the parties want it to.

nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:43:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
SITTING wrote:
I don't think it'll come to war. I think India and Pakistan need to really clear up all their old troubles, split Kashmir down the middle (i'm guessing it ain't that easy) and show a united front, or else they'll just be like this forever.

You right; these border tensions hardly lead to war between India and Pakistan.
But I do not agree that no one would like to help them de-escalate tensions.
Unted Nations is made to handle this sort of tension.
USA has already started helping both the countries.
We should pray to strengthen forces of peace.
And lets not suggest any solution to their age old problems.
It is for them to decide and settle themselves.
And no one is crzy enough to use nukes on such petty border tensions.
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:56:59 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
Who would you bet on to win?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:15:45 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lovewhenuswallow wrote:
Who would you bet on to win?


Pakistan, hands down. Not because they're stronger, but because their government seems way more unstable. Basically, in a full-scale war, this question should be rephrased as: which country is more likely to lob a couple of nuclear warheads at the other? Pakistan.
DLizze
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:40:18 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
Tension has been running hot and cold along the India/Pakistan border for as long as I can remember. Back in the mid-fifties, there was a grade B movie made about it: King of the Kyber Rifles.



"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:17:21 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


Pakistan, hands down. Not because they're stronger, but because their government seems way more unstable. Basically, in a full-scale war, this question should be rephrased as: which country is more likely to lob a couple of nuclear warheads at the other? Pakistan.


Dude... Just like in a street fight. The fucking crazy guy that would go so far as to pull out a gun, knife or stomp on the opponents head will win.



Buz
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:27:24 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,789
Location: Atlanta, United States
Haven't they technically been at war for decades? They do lob artillery shells at each other occasionally just as a reminder of their mutual hatred.

Yes both India and Pakistan have nukes and I agree Pakistan is the least stable and their government is a bit crazy. Makes for a dangerous mix. You'd think India has the numbers in their favor but the side with the largest army has lost many wars in history. It's which army is the best trained, meanest in battle, best organized, most efficient, and best armed and supplied.

Maybe Obama can intervene and try to win the Nobel Peace Prize. hmmmm... or start WWIII.

Hopefully the situation will diffuse itself as mutual obliteration between India and Pakistan could be a real scenario and a huge disaster.

nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:57:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Buz wrote:
Haven't they technically been at war for decades? They do lob artillery shells at each other occasionally just as a reminder of their mutual hatred.


Hopefully the situation will diffuse itself as mutual obliteration between India and Pakistan could be a real scenario and a huge disaster.


You correct.
Both India and Pakistan had been lobbing shell accross ever since their birth.
They fought mini war in 1948 over Kashmir; India repelled Pakistani lashkars.
Again in 1965, they fought an 18 days war all over their borders; though started by Pakistan sending disguised Army men in Kashmir.
UN intervened, US stopped mlitary supplies to both the countries. War halted,
No one emerged a clear winner, though India had an edge.
Again, in 1971, India liberated (invaded) East Pakistan which became Bangladesh.
India was a clear winner with about 90,000 prisioners of war, released after about 2 years of captivity through dialogue
between Indira Gandhi & Z. A. Bhutto at Simla.
India acquired nuclear technology in 1974 although it stayed away from developing nuclear warheads.
Indian government had 5 nuclear tests in 1998, followed by 6 bombs tested by Pakistan.
Pak Army invaded Kargil heights in Kashmir, repulsed by Indian Army, killing over 3,500 Pak Army personels in the guise of volunteers.
But nukes of both countries are under tight control, developed internatonlly.
Not possible to employ nukes in such border tensions.

Again you are correct, the situation wll automatically diffuse soon.
As soon as the war mongering factions of both armies are in better senses.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:53:42 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
LadyX wrote:


Pakistan, hands down. Not because they're stronger, but because their government seems way more unstable. Basically, in a full-scale war, this question should be rephrased as: which country is more likely to lob a couple of nuclear warheads at the other? Pakistan.


More nukes? You need to observe Pakistan's size. If they use a single nuke they won't get time to launch their other nukes. Before that they will be answered in such a way that they will no longer exist on the worldmap.
Naughty_Magician
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:30:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,800
Location: Sublime Heights, Germany
awake_ wrote:


More nukes? You need to observe Pakistan's size. If they use a single nuke they won't get time to launch their other nukes. Before that they will be answered in such a way that they will no longer exist on the worldmap.


What are you smoking? If they wanna nuke it up, why would they use just one, it makes sense to really go for it if you're gonna involve nukes. But I don't think there is gonna be a war and that's because both countries have got nukes, they are dumb but I don't think they are that dumb (at least I hope so!).

Also, your first post is pretty biased, how do you know for sure that Pakistan killed Indian soldiers first? If you're basing your opinions on Indian media, that's pretty stupid. In times like these, neutral media sources are more reliable and according to the nytimes, no Indian soldier was killed or injured (one Pakistani soldier died) when they clashed for the first time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/world/asia/pakistani-soldier-killed-in-shooting-in-kashmir.html



Had a dream I was king, I woke up still king!!
ByronLord
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:06:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
The Pakistani military is not necessarily acting on behalf of the democratically elected government.

Musharaf staged the coup that put him in power because the elected President attempted to dismiss him for refusing to stop trying to start a war with India. The Pakistani military has not changed much since. Musharaf was the prime mover behind the Taliban, he brought it into being.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there was a choice between going into Afghanistan through Iran or Pakistan. Going through Iran was a much better option. The authority of the 'Supreme Leader' had been weakened by Bin Laden's terrorist act. We had good intelligence as the diplomatic codes had been broken (this was uncovered later during the occupation of iraq). The obvious move to me was to form a grand alliance whereby Iran would liquidate the Supreme Leader and his clique in return for adding Afghanistan (or at least the Western, Shi'ia half) to its sphere of influence.

Instead Bush decided to form an alliance with the creator of the Taliban then invade Iraq and add that country to Iran's sphere of influence instead. There might be a logic to that move bu I could never see it. It was pretty obvious that the US was not going to occupy Iraq forever and the only regional power that could plausibly replace the US was Iran. Why else try to make Chalabai, a man that the CIA had told me was an Iranian agent back in the mid 90s? (Chalabai happened to have been a former student of a colleague when he was at MIT).

Sweet_N_Naughty
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:50:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/11/2012
Posts: 162
Location: United States
India and Pakistan fighting for 1 thing and 1 thing only that is Kashmir......Kashmir location is the northwestern part of Indian.....this have nothing to do with 9/11, USA and other countries plz my friends note this...that kills is all about Kashmir this war is between both nations over 60 years and more it is nothing new....Kashmir is what divided between both India and Pakistan...i can not say who should get the land or not or how much....
they should let both governments fix it .....it can be solve....but hey life not perfect......

thank you
elitfromnorth
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:20:09 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,619
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Doubt nukes will be used. As mental as the Pakistani government is, they're fully aware of that deploying nukes will lead to not only India answering with Nukes, but the rest of the world realising that they have a nuclear power who's unstable enough to nuke it. Result; mass scale international invasion where the only object is to remove nuclear technology from Pakistan. And using the nukes will make China really nervous. Who would want an unstable neighbour with nukes? You could really end up with a UN invasion led by China, Russia and the US. Would make for a really interesting scene though.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:51:00 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Sweet_N_Naughty wrote:
India and Pakistan fighting for 1 thing and 1 thing only that is Kashmir.


I mean, it's a good song and all, but is it really worth the bloodshed?
Guest
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:06:14 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
Naughty_Magician wrote:


What are you smoking? If they wanna nuke it up, why would they use just one, it makes sense to really go for it if you're gonna involve nukes. But I don't think there is gonna be a war and that's because both countries have got nukes, they are dumb but I don't think they are that dumb (at least I hope so!).

Also, your first post is pretty biased, how do you know for sure that Pakistan killed Indian soldiers first? If you're basing your opinions on Indian media, that's pretty stupid. In times like these, neutral media sources are more reliable and according to the nytimes, no Indian soldier was killed or injured (one Pakistani soldier died) when they clashed for the first time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/world/asia/pakistani-soldier-killed-in-shooting-in-kashmir.html



I'm quite offended by your sarcastic tone. Were you or nytimes appointed there on LOC as an observer by the UN to see whether Pakistan army attacked Indian sodiers in real or not and announce that the media is stupid? Neutral media sources are not god, are they? It seems like you have decided not to trust any Indian media. If it is the case then you shouldn't be a part of any discussion.What I see in your opinion (?) is the lack of study regarding actual situation on LOC since 1947 and preparations of both the countires for the nuclear war.
Naughty_Magician
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:14:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,800
Location: Sublime Heights, Germany
LadyX wrote:


I mean, it's a good song and all, but is it really worth the bloodshed?


I don't think they actually care about Kashmir, most (if not all) of the rivers in the region run from Kashmir and that's what the main issue is. They should pull their troops out of Kashmir and let it be an independent state, they can create a mechanism in which both countries get the water they need without having to fight for it. However, the mistrust between the two countries runs deep so they need to first work on rectifying that.

Had a dream I was king, I woke up still king!!
Naughty_Magician
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:29:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,800
Location: Sublime Heights, Germany
awake_ wrote:


I'm quite offended by your sarcastic tone. Were you or nytimes appointed there on LOC as an observer by the UN to see whether Pakistan army attacked Indian sodiers in real or not and announce that the media is stupid? Neutral media sources are not god, are they? It seems like you have decided not to trust any Indian media. If it is the case then you shouldn't be a part of any discussion.What I see in your opinion (?) is the lack of study regarding actual situation on LOC since 1947 and preparations of both the countires for the nuclear war.


I never said the media is stupid, I said the media of both countries is biased which is quite understandable. Neutral media sources are not god but they are more likely to be unbiased. Pakistani side of the story is a little like this: http://dawn.com/2013/01/11/pakistan-summons-indian-envoy-over-second-killing/


Let me dumb it for you, two guys (lets call them Mike and John) get into a fight, now do you expect them to be unbiased about who started the fight, or does it make sense that a third person (lets say Lucy) who has nothing to do with both of them would tell the true tale?

It doesn't matter who did what though, they should chill the fuck out and not let minor incidents threaten the peaceful atmosphere which has been in place for awhile.


Had a dream I was king, I woke up still king!!
nazhinaz
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:47:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Naughty_Magician wrote:


I don't think they actually care about Kashmir, most (if not all) of the rivers in the region run from Kashmir and that's what the main issue is. They should pull their troops out of Kashmir and let it be an independent state, they can create a mechanism in which both countries get the water they need without having to fight for it. However, the mistrust between the two countries runs deep so they need to first work on rectifying that.


I feel your assessment about the water being the crux of issue between the two states o India and Pakistan is not entirely correct.
It is more of an ideological issue.
India considering itself as secular state wants a predominantly Muslim Kashmir as part and parcel of SECULAR India.
Pakistan on the other hand is fighting for the two nation theory being the basis of partition of India.
Two nation theory was or is (as to me it has been drowned in Gulf of Bengal in 1971) that Muslims and Hindus are two serperate nations and
do need seperate nation states to live in.
1971 proved this theory wrong when Bangladesh ( a predominently Muslim population) seperated to form an independent country.
Had it been merely issue of water, I am sure United Nations would have come in to bring some solution; as it did in the form of INDUS WATER TREATY in 1960.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:14:00 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
Naughty_Magician wrote:


I never said the media is stupid, I said the media of both countries is biased which is quite understandable. Neutral media sources are not god but they are more likely to be unbiased. Pakistani side of the story is a little like this: http://dawn.com/2013/01/11/pakistan-summons-indian-envoy-over-second-killing/


Let me dumb it for you, two guys (lets call them Mike and John) get into a fight, now do you expect them to be unbiased about who started the fight, or does it make sense that a third person (lets say Lucy) who has nothing to do with both of them would tell the true tale?

It doesn't matter who did what though, they should chill the fuck out and not let minor incidents threaten the peaceful atmosphere which has been in place for awhile.


what about the bodies of those two Indian soldiers cremated ? are those fake?
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:20:40 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
Naughty_Magician wrote:


I don't think they actually care about Kashmir, most (if not all) of the rivers in the region run from Kashmir and that's what the main issue is. They should pull their troops out of Kashmir and let it be an independent state, they can create a mechanism in which both countries get the water they need without having to fight for it. However, the mistrust between the two countries runs deep so they need to first work on rectifying that.


This issue is not related to water at all my dear friend. Whatever nazhinaz says is correct.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:26:30 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,753
LadyX wrote:


I mean, it's a good song and all, but is it really worth the bloodshed?



It is because of the completely unstable government of Pakistan. Actually their government hardly possess any right regarding military actions to be taken against any nation (mostly India). Pakistan army is the supreme power over there. They can't win in the traditional war between India and pakistan. They know this thing very well. That's why their army supports terrorist groups there and provide them all the fund that Pakistan government gets from other nations.
Joad58
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:42:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 1/6/2013
Posts: 52
Location: Austin, United States
I am not suprised. Bad blood between the two goes back years. All they are looking for is an excuse.
Naughty_Magician
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013 8:21:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,800
Location: Sublime Heights, Germany
awake_ wrote:


what about the bodies of those two Indian soldiers cremated ? are those fake?


When did I say the bodies were fake?

Water might not be the only reason for their animosity. But it is the most rational one as both countries depend on hydro power for their energy needs so it makes sense to secure the water source.

It doesn't matter which country did what in the past, they need to move forward and the only way forward is the peaceful one.

Had a dream I was king, I woke up still king!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.