
India and Pakistan should stop playing with fire - godelmachine
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/28/india-and-pakistan-should-stop-playing-with-fire
======
merpnderp
I don't get this article. Pakistan's reprehensible support for terrorism
started this conflict, but it's all Mr. Modi's fault because they don't like
his politics?

~~~
devoply
Some non state actors started the conflict, and India decided to make it an
official conflict. State actors can't really treat these non-conventional
forces as extensions of the military of other countries and retaliate against
them. Well they can but then they risk starting wars. Often these non-state
actors do whatever they want on their own, despite their handlers telling them
not to do something. If these two countries do go to war it's likely that both
will suffer heavily because of it -- Pakistan may not survive but India may be
badly damaged. With all the economic issues these countries have they should
really avoid getting into something like war.

~~~
Bhilai
> Some non state actors started the conflict, and India decided to make it an
> official conflict. State actors can't really treat these non-conventional
> forces as extensions of the military of other countries and retaliate
> against them.

Sorry but this is total BS. Pakistan as a state is known to support and
sponsor terrorist groups including Jaish-e-Mohammed, which was responsible for
the recent attack that led to deaths of 40 Indian soldiers. Jaish has
terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir. So even if what you
claim is true, the Govt. of Pakistan has all the powers to put an end to these
camps but they chose not to.

~~~
devoply
Government of India and the Indian military similarly has the power to stop
all of its abuses of Kashmir but chooses not to... Each side is playing its
game. They are both wrong.

------
writepub
Yes indeed! India should pay heed to an opinion hit-piece authored by a
citizen of the West with no connection to on-the-ground reality in Indian
Kashmir, or India.

The truth is patently simple: Pakistan's ISI (it's version of CIA) provides
direct financial, logistic, and strategic cover for terrorists who target and
kill Indians, routinely. How exactly does any country deal with this?

I don't remember the economist publishing outrage over US' take-out of Osama
Bin Laden, what's different here? Is it that the victim country differs from
the author's home?

~~~
ziyadparekh
The truth isnt as simple as you make it out to be. Pakistan was just handed
into the control of a new government which seems to be taking a proactive
stand with popular measures coming into play.

India is entering into election terms which could be the reason these tensions
are escalating. Both countries using this to further their own political
agendas. India crossed the Line of Control, Pakistan shot down and captured
pilots. And just announced the release of said pilot(s). It seems that
Pakistan has no interest in playing with fire, although they are confident in
dealing with any threat that comes their way. Indias current government seems
more interested in playing this game and spurring nationalistic fervor since
that particular regime has a very real interest in getting reelected.

Both countries have intelligence agencies that probably fund terrorist camps.
So blaming just one country is highly misguided.

But yes i agree with you, its very easy for outsiders to cheaply throw words
in an article without deeply researching whats actually happening.

~~~
Bhilai
To refresh your memory, 40 Indian soldiers were killed in Kashmir. Jaish-e-
Mohammed claimed responsibility for this attack and is known to be based out
of Pakistan. So blaming Pakistan is not misguided at all.

------
amriksohata
This article totally misses the point, election or no election, any Indian (or
non Indian) government would have to respond to 40 of its army men being
killed by a terrorist group that gets sanctuary in Pakistan. Pakistan is known
to have played a double game with the US too, removing terrorists that are
anti-Pakistani but supporting terrorists that support the Pakistani
expansionist agenda into Kashmir

~~~
mhq
Who could benefit from that terrorist attack? Answer. BJP and Indian PM Modi.
India has 700,000 army persons in a small valley of Kashmir. Their
intelligence service (R&W) has infiltrated all the terrorist orgs in Kashmir
and conducts such bomb blasts for political gains whenever required. Modi
required right-wing votes so required war-hysteria and jingoism which lead to
all this situation.

~~~
amriksohata
Lol this is utter fantasy land, only an ISI agent would make such pantomime up

------
prudhvis
India isn't playing with fire. India has a clear no first use policy.

~~~
nindalf
India is playing with fire because Pakistan doesn't have such a policy. If the
situation appears dire for Pakistan, the Pakistani Army could resort to using
tactical nukes.

~~~
writepub
Ah! So for Pakistan to be "playing with fire", India would merely need to
withdraw it's stated "no first use of nukes" policy?

All you're doing is legitimizing a rouge state's rouge excuses for threats of
nuclear war. Pakistani army has NO excuse to use nuclear weapons, unless
they've been at the receiving end of a nuclear attack

------
UnpossibleJim
I know this won't happen (well, I'm fairly positive, I should say), but what
is foreign response if two, close set nations, such as India and Pakistan
should choose to use a nuclear option on each other. Or North Korea and South
Korea. Not on anyone else, but just on each other. I realize this is a bit of
a naive question, before the criticisms come in, but I'm more curious about
answers rather than insults, if you don't mind.

~~~
noir_lord
They'd both be pariahs for a considerable amount of time (decades possibly),
in fact from a global point of view it might actually be better to _not_ fire
back after a limited (theatre) level attack, your opponent would destroy any
credibility they had entirely.

Just the optics of the US or EU doing business with a country that lobbed a
nuke at a democracy (I'm assuming it's Pakistan that fires in this scenario
because honestly that is the more likely first strike, India has a firmly
stated policy of no first use).

The Pakistani system is considerably more fractured and much less under
control with almost parallel systems of government between the military
leaders and civilian leaders.

They are pretty much the worst case scenario after NK having nukes and in some
ways worse, NK doesn't have an ongoing relationship with religious
fundamentalists at every level.

~~~
tomatotomato37
It could be interesting to speculate what would happen in response to the
fallout drifting over China & southern Russia. I could see both nations start
raiding India/Pakistan with conventional forces just out of spite

~~~
writepub
I don't know about Pakistan, but the Indian military is not a trivial
adversary for China/Russia to "raid". Russia also sees no benefit to raiding
India, as the two have historically been closely allied.

Also, how practical is unprovokedly "raiding" a nuclear power that has shown a
willingness to use nukes? Are you assuming the nukes get spent in one
conflict? The stockpiles held by either probably suffices multiple wars.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
One thing that may have changed the calculus for India being more aggressive
in it's bombing is that US backing of Pakistan in a conflict with India is no
longer a given. Given the covert if not overt Pakistani support for Taliban
insurgents in Afghanistan, as well as that Bin Laden was found hiding in
Pakistan, I doubt there is any substantial support in the US population for
Pakistan over against India. Many Americans have a much higher affinity toward
India (world's largest democracy, a modernizing economy, home to many tech
companies) and than toward Pakistan. In addition, it seems that Modi and Trump
have a much better relationship, and probably have a similar view of the
world, than Trump and Pakistan's president.

------
presscast
Seems interesting, but I got paywalled. :(

~~~
mzybert
Disabling JS did the trick for me.

