Billions could die is a good headline, to get attention. Without taking lightly of serious situation, the appetite for a full war is not there in neither countries, all they want is some bragging rights. Politicians are willing to serve some of it.
Things have escalated because of the worst single incident since 1989, in which a radical terrorist suicide bombed 40 people in one go.
I really doubt things would be calm if it weren't election season.
you will note that on the marquee at the top, one of the statements reads "DECISIVE BATTLE IS NEED OF HOUR."
on twitter, both indians and pakistanis appear to be calling for escalation of the war while believing that their side is the one that is winning the skirmishes. the people i've been following on both sides appear to think that their militaries will prevail. of course, their statements cannot be mutually true in reality. but the public opinion apparatus appears to be oriented towards pushing an immediate escalation of the war, and there may be significant grassroots support for escalation independently of that.
on the other hand, pakistani airforce removed the fuzes from bombs which they dropped on several indian positions, so it was more like a "we could have gotten you, if we wanted to" action. and the indian air force appears to be bombing empty ground from the get-go, which serves the same signalling purpose. furthermore, for all the artillery shelling the two sides have been doing, it seems like casualties and damage are nearly nonexistent at present.
i doubt that billions will die. but this isn't a minor flap anymore -- it's the precipice of a larger and more destructive conflict. such a conflict could still be limited, however, such as in the kargil war.
It's interesting to me that this strategy persists. While outwardly cunning, the danger of an unarticulated threshold is total annihilation. A double edged strategy, to say the least.
Is 6% the right number anyway? I wouldn’t be surprised if emissions in that part of the world were growing.
>> Among the most audacious were the 2001 attacks on India’s parliament and the 2008 siege of Mumbai, which killed over 150 people. Had such an attack occurred in the United States, Narang said, America would have ended a nation-state.
The reason why India didn’t respond to force, according to Narang, is that—despite its alleged Cold Start doctrine—Indian leaders were unsure exactly where Pakistan’s nuclear threshold stood. That is, even if Indian leaders believed they were launching a limited attack, they couldn’t be sure that Pakistani leaders wouldn’t view it as expansive enough to justify using nuclear weapons. This is no accident: as Khan said, Pakistani leaders intentionally leave their nuclear threshold ambiguous.
That's very realistic scenario that absolutely does not require India to be at all a "rogue, failed state with crazy leaders".
Ok, I know this is a low effort comment. But, this is a low effort article. Nuclear war bad! Next up: Water wet!
Nuclear weapons could make irreversible changes on the Earth. It is much dangerous than any war.
After that, they may not have "enough resources to compensate the damage"
The idea is to make a law against poor unpredicted countries with nukes (such as Pakistan or North Korea) so that they don’t use nukes as argument in the politics to make profits as it could end up badly.