AuthorTopic: WW3??  (Read 96071 times)

Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #300 on: February 15, 2017, 11:24:58 AM »
If Pakistan or India decide to lob nukes at each other it would be a major war and it would almost certainly become the most deadly conflict in human history. The bit I have some doubts over however is whether this conflict would constitute a true world war. To me, a world war is a war fought between a number of imminent world powers and should involve several nations. I am not sure how nuclear weapons would force the deployment of troops outside of India or Pakistan. You could well get diplomatics around the world advising for a peaceful solution that prevents mutually assured destruction from happening but it is hard for me to see actual troops on the crowd from outside nations. At the most you get paramilitary groups that fight in proxy for third party nation states.

If we look back at history and see the development of world war I for example the starting point was the assassination of an Austrian archduke called Franz Ferdinand. His death caused a diplomatic crisis as several countries - through the course of 19th century - had formed various alliances so an attack on the Austrian-Hungarian empire meant a large number of countries were compelled to fight with them whereas an almost equal number sided with the Kingdom of Serbia who were accused of sponsoring the assassination. This sudden development of a bunch of nations fighting is what can be considered a world war as you get most major nations fighting. The best modern example I could think of that could create a new world war is if a big nation such as Russia attacks a NATO state and this invokes the clause in the NATO treaty were all other member nations must fight. That would be a world war because you have a large number of nations fighting against each other. Furthermore the political pull of nations such as the US or Russia could well be enough to pull others nations into the fray. This to me is the difference between an Indian/Pakistani conflict and a true world war.

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: WW3??
« Reply #301 on: February 15, 2017, 12:10:57 PM »
If Pakistan or India decide to lob nukes at each other it would be a major war and it would almost certainly become the most deadly conflict in human history. The bit I have some doubts over however is whether this conflict would constitute a true world war. To me, a world war is a war fought between a number of imminent world powers and should involve several nations. I am not sure how nuclear weapons would force the deployment of troops outside of India or Pakistan. You could well get diplomatics around the world advising for a peaceful solution that prevents mutually assured destruction from happening but it is hard for me to see actual troops on the crowd from outside nations. At the most you get paramilitary groups that fight in proxy for third party nation states.

If we look back at history and see the development of world war I for example the starting point was the assassination of an Austrian archduke called Franz Ferdinand. His death caused a diplomatic crisis as several countries - through the course of 19th century - had formed various alliances so an attack on the Austrian-Hungarian empire meant a large number of countries were compelled to fight with them whereas an almost equal number sided with the Kingdom of Serbia who were accused of sponsoring the assassination. This sudden development of a bunch of nations fighting is what can be considered a world war as you get most major nations fighting. The best modern example I could think of that could create a new world war is if a big nation such as Russia attacks a NATO state and this invokes the clause in the NATO treaty were all other member nations must fight. That would be a world war because you have a large number of nations fighting against each other. Furthermore the political pull of nations such as the US or Russia could well be enough to pull others nations into the fray. This to me is the difference between an Indian/Pakistani conflict and a true world war.

I agree with you about what is necessary for true "world war." 

However, I'm not sure that matters much.  I suppose if India did use some strategic nuclear missiles the entire world would be involved with the radiation.  Worse than we already are with Fukupukoo...at least that radioactive contamination is mostly contained to the ocean.  Granted sea food is out of the question now, if you want to ensure you're not eating radioactively contaminated food.  I suppose that threat is true for any food grown in the Fukupukoo region (I pronounce that foo-koo-pew-koo), such as rice from Japan (which America has not outlawed). 

So, the entire world would most certainly be involved here. 

What is the likelihood that this scenario between India and Pakistan actually happens though?  That's the main question.  It's possible, but is it likely?  I think Palloy's point is that since it hasn't happened in 19 years it likely won't happen. 

The world getting more unstable doesn't necessarily equate into this old rivalry turning nuclear.  Why would India attack Pakistan to begin with?  Why would Pakistan start a fight that it knows it would lose?  I can't see it being over Hindu/Muslim beaf.  My understanding is that most Hindu's are not militant.  There is most certainly militant Muslims, and I'm sure Pakistan has plenty of them, but I'm not so sure they would attack India over strictly religious reasons.  There would have to be more to it then that.   


Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3439
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: WW3??
« Reply #302 on: February 15, 2017, 01:13:17 PM »
When nuclear winter hits and your hair starts falling out you might figure out that India and Pakistan coming to fisticuffs was actually a world war.  The fact that you were not consulted about if you wanted to be a participant will be irrelevant.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39946
    • View Profile
Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #303 on: February 15, 2017, 02:16:15 PM »
It would just take a couple of tactical nukes and a few Colonels facing eminent defeat.

It's spelled IMMINENT:icon_mrgreen:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17932
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #304 on: February 15, 2017, 02:24:20 PM »
I was wondering if you'd catch that.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39946
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #305 on: February 15, 2017, 02:51:08 PM »
I was wondering if you'd catch that.

I was 2nd in the NYC Spelling Bee in 6th Grade. :) Didn't get to go to State Finals or Nationals.  :(

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #306 on: February 15, 2017, 02:54:59 PM »
I was 2nd in the NYC Spelling Bee in 6th Grade. :) Didn't get to go to State Finals or Nationals.  :(


That's spelling be, silly! Not bee!
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #307 on: February 15, 2017, 03:04:21 PM »
It would just take a couple of tactical nukes and a few Colonels facing eminent defeat.

It's spelled IMMINENT:icon_mrgreen:

RE

Whatever...I can spell ;D  Or as Napoleon Dynamite put it "your mom went to college." 

I don't mind being the village spelling idiot...just don't be singling me out. 

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: WW3??
« Reply #308 on: February 15, 2017, 03:07:58 PM »
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eminent?s=t

Quote
Eminent:
adjective
1.
high in station, rank, or repute; prominent; distinguished:
eminent statesmen.
2.
conspicuous, signal, or noteworthy:
eminent fairness.
3.
lofty; high:
eminent peaks.
4.
prominent; projecting; protruding:
an eminent nose.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imminent?s=t

Quote
Imminent:
adjective
1.
likely to occur at any moment; impending:
Her death is imminent.
2.
projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.

There, I've done my homework. 

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39946
    • View Profile
Re: Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #309 on: February 15, 2017, 03:21:28 PM »
It would just take a couple of tactical nukes and a few Colonels facing eminent defeat.

It's spelled IMMINENT:icon_mrgreen:

RE

Whatever...I can spell ;D  Or as Napoleon Dynamite put it "your mom went to college." 

I don't mind being the village spelling idiot...just don't be singling me out.

We at the Spelling Gestapo endeavor to catch all Spelling Criminals without prejudice.  Our motto:

To Protect & Serve the Purity of the English Language

RE
SG Chief of Police
Save As Many As You Can

Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #310 on: February 15, 2017, 03:33:50 PM »
What is the likelihood that this scenario between India and Pakistan actually happens though?  That's the main question.  It's possible, but is it likely?  I think Palloy's point is that since it hasn't happened in 19 years it likely won't happen. 

The world getting more unstable doesn't necessarily equate into this old rivalry turning nuclear.  Why would India attack Pakistan to begin with?  Why would Pakistan start a fight that it knows it would lose?  I can't see it being over Hindu/Muslim beaf.  My understanding is that most Hindu's are not militant.  There is most certainly militant Muslims, and I'm sure Pakistan has plenty of them, but I'm not so sure they would attack India over strictly religious reasons.  There would have to be more to it then that.

While nuclear warfare is a distinct possibility I do not believe it is a probably outcome. This applies to all regions not just Pakistan/India. As resources become more scarce and peoples' standard of living goes down civil war and social strife seems a more likely outcome. I say this for two reasons but the first part of my reasoning can already be seen in the Middle-East and the in southern European countries like Greece and Italy. People are on the streets protesting, people are rejecting mainstream politics/media and are favouring more extreme ideologies. If you consider some of the stuff Trump says it is not all too dissimilar to what ISIS people say. I know someone who joined the latter and when confronting mainstream media stories they said, in effect, it was fake news.

Such trends will continue as we go down the slope of collapse and once the positions of the mainstream become untenable (when the decline of living standards can no longer be credibly masked with fake statistics) then people will get mad. They will go on the streets like the Arabs did in the Arab Springs. We know the riots did nothing to alleviate the problem as the fundamental issues were not political but actually ecological in nature. This subsequent frustration with the ineffectiveness of a political revolution left people disillusioned and led to even greater and more violent conflicts. But notice these are mostly civil and not international conflicts although there are notable exceptions here. I envision similar things happening in the west.

The second line of reasoning why I think major conflicts will not be protracted is you need huge amounts of fossil fuel energy and debt to fund wars. Unlike the 1940s all countries including the United States are lacking in both resources. What is more we are more interdependent on each other for the production of goods and services so the option of retrofitting factories for war is less feasible today than it was before world war II when most sources of manufacturing were still based within the same country. The interconnectedness of all countries to trade makes total war, from a logistical standpoint, much more difficult. True you can limit conflicts to a particular region in the world but a war spanning the whole world seems hard to fathom. As for nuclear weapons. It is hard for me to see a nation deploying such weapons unless the country in question feels an existential threat in which case they would see a mutually assured destruction as a non lose scenario. In any other scenario such weapons would be avoided without there first being armed conflict. The only other possible scenario I could see a nuclear conflict developing is through a false flag scenario whereby a rogue terrorist group "steals" a nuke and bombs another rival nation. How far plausible deny ability goes, and whether it could prevent retaliation in kind is an open question.

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #311 on: February 15, 2017, 03:39:02 PM »
It would just take a couple of tactical nukes and a few Colonels facing eminent defeat.

It's spelled IMMINENT:icon_mrgreen:

RE

Whatever...I can spell ;D  Or as Napoleon Dynamite put it "your mom went to college." 

I don't mind being the village spelling idiot...just don't be singling me out.

We at the Spelling Gestapo endeavor to catch all Spelling Criminals without prejudice.  Our motto:

To Protect & Serve the Purity of the English Language

RE
SG Chief of Police

I, sir, have no problem with correct grammar, syntax, and spelling.

It just so happens that I happen to infringe on the rules quite often. 

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39946
    • View Profile
Re: Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #312 on: February 15, 2017, 03:50:42 PM »

I, sir, have no problem with correct grammar, syntax, and spelling.

It just so happens that I happen to infringe on the rules quite often.

In the SG Justice system, if you infringe on the rules, you do a perp walk in an orange jumpsuit. :P



RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Spelling Gestapo on Patrol
« Reply #313 on: February 15, 2017, 04:22:39 PM »

I, sir, have no problem with correct grammar, syntax, and spelling.

It just so happens that I happen to infringe on the rules quite often.

In the SG Justice system, if you infringe on the rules, you do a perp walk in an orange jumpsuit. :P



RE

I had to wear that exact jump suit over my utilities when I was on restriction gettin' kicked out of the U.S. Navy.  Good luck puttin' me in a cell again.  I learned that following the rules and not getting yourself in stupid situations is paramount to your physical freedom staying in tact in our society. 

I may not know how to spell, but I ain't stoopit neather. 

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6098
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: WW3??
« Reply #314 on: February 15, 2017, 04:48:14 PM »
India has been nuclear armed since 1974, Pakistan since 1998, so 19 years without nuclear war, and absolutely no reason to expect one to start now.

This article sounds like it was written by a 12 year old for a school essay competition.  Ludicrous.

I don't know Palloy.  Why is it so ludicrously written?  Or do you just think the entire idea of nuclear war ending our species to be ludicrous?  What, pray sir, is ludicrous about it? 

It at least seems to be a scenario within the realm of a possible reality.  It would just take a couple of tactical nukes and a few Colonels facing eminent defeat.

Quote
This is the dreaded scenario: Fed up with Pakistanís persistent meddling and incursions into Kashmir, and ignoring the pleas of the U.S. and the rest of the world, India unleashes its long awaited invasion of Pakistan.

The 1947 Partition was never completed.  They set a deadline for the partition date and then couldn't sign off on what was to happen in Jammu and Kashmir.  This is the most extreme environment for humans anywhere in the world, rugged mountains, no roads, frozen for half the year, even armies can't move about there.  It is de facto partitioned along the orange line:



There's no real dispute about the southern part that India controls, and Pakistan militarily (and socially) controls the northern part.  It is only at the line of contact that anything ever happens - opposing troops take pot shots at each other, (sometimes at themselves by mistake) mostly out of boredom and bravado.  For 70 years these skirmishes have been smoothed over by exchanges of diplomatic letters.  It really isn't a "hot-spot", any more than the China-Pakistan border dispute and the China-India border dispute.

Why would India want to invade?  They don't want to be in charge of a bunch of tribal Muslim areas, where the people are independent.  It would be even worse than trying to invade and hold Afghanistan.  The only reason is to make this silly scenario work.

Quote
Pakistani field officers with the rank of full colonel or general have been given the authority to use tactical nukes at their own discretion.

Hang on, the weapons haven't even been deployed yet, let alone multiple officers given the right to use them.  What government would do a crazy thing like that?  Why?  he only reason is to make this silly scenario work.

Quote
Pakistan has a modest supply of strategic warheads, but a large supply of tactical nuclear weapons.

They have?  Any facts to go with that, like numbers and sources?  All the reports refer to other reports, which refer to testimony by US Director of Intelligence to the House Armed Service Committee, and you would believe that bunch of neocons?

Quote
Of course, once India realizes itís under attack from nuclear weapons, they go ape-shit. They instantly retaliate with nukes of their own, but instead of the ďbenignĒ battlefield variety, they bring out the big boys. They launch a full-scale strategic nuclear attack against Pakistanís major cities and military installations.

They do?  Why, since they know what would likely come next?

Quote
Left with no choice, Pakistan fires every nuclear warhead in its arsenal, convinced that, win, lose or draw, once the smoke clears, multitudes of faithful Muslims will be reunited with Allah.

Clearly this is a schoolboy who believes that all Muslims are crazy suicidal fanatics.  I wonder where he got that idea from.

Quote
As a consequence of this conflagration (a cumulative blast one million times more powerful than that of Hiroshima), the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth experiences Nuclear Winter, and life as we know it perishes.

And thatís how the world ends.

A million times more powerful than that of Hiroshima.  Impressive, though that is at least a thousand times more bombs than India and Pakistan have.  Still, we are not bothered about minor things like actual numbers, are we?  The atmosphere is poisoned, is it?  There will certainly be a measurable increase in radiation levels, but that only shows up as increased cancer rates 20 years down the track.  Nuclear Winter?  Why?

This whole article is constructed to get to "And that's how the world ends", regardless of how totally stupid the steps are to get there.

"The State is a body of armed men."