Would an Indian Attack on Pakistan Be "Crazy?"

[jordan179]

Introduction

I've heard it argued by more than one person that, because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, India must simply suffer terrorist attacks from Pakistan without doing anything in response which could decisively end the terrorist threat -- that it would be strategically crazy to start a potentially nuclear war. Still less should India try to

Comments

[steltek]

In a sane world, your ideas would have merit. But we don't live in a sane world -- our own interventions around the globe should tell you that. We depose a brutal dictatorship, spending untold amounts of blood and treasure upon the freedom and security of another people, and we are decried as imperialists. If India acted as you described, they would alienate the entire world, something they are no doubt not willing to do, given the current path to growth and prosperity they are on, however perilous it may be with Pakistan looming over them. India will take its chances with half-measures.

A new kind of madness has settled over the civilized world, wherein decisive force is thought of as a tool of the evil and depraved alone. And yet, no one ever gets around to realizing that if such action is reserved only to the evil and depraved, then the good and the just are doomed.

[jordan179]

If India acted as you described, they would alienate the entire world, something they are no doubt not willing to do, given the current path to growth and prosperity they are on, however perilous it may be with Pakistan looming over them. India will take its chances with half-measures.

I'm not sure that "alienating the entire world" would do as much damage to India as would a continuation of Mumbai Massacre type attacks. In particular, I don't think it would much affect Indian trade, nor the growing American alliance (because America's mad at Pakistan too).

[steltek]

"I'm not sure that "alienating the entire world" would do as much damage to India as would a continuation of Mumbai Massacre type attacks. In particular, I don't think it would much affect Indian trade, nor the growing American alliance (because America's mad at Pakistan too)."

I'm sure it wouldn't on a practical level, but I don't expect the Indians or anyone else to realize that. Though, it may be that I'm talking more about what I think they will do as opposed to what I think they should do, at this point.

[madwriter]

Strange as these may seem, from an economic standpoint having little to do with India and Pakistan, but rather Russia and China committing to such a war, this would be the time for India to attack.

One, gas prices are incredibly low again and may not have even bottomed out. Which means that Russia has a lot less money flowing in. It seems that the higher oil prices go with that much more money flowing into Russian coffers, the more hawkish Putin gets. Ditto for Ahmadinejad and Iran's government.

Second, China's economy is contracting now because America is buying fewer imports. China and America are so reliant on each other now, both in good times and bad, that China would have to do some serious soul-searching before committing itself to a path that would put it so starkly at odds with the U.S. We're interconnected enough now so that whatever it might gain from helping Pakistan it would certainly lose many times over by damaging ties with us.

[jordan179]

These are both good points, amplifying my argument that Russia and China would probably act diplomatically to protect Pakistan, and might well try to supply Pakistan in the midst of a war with America and India, but would not be willing to join in the actual fighting. They have too much to lose, and they also know Pakistan isn't really their friend anyway.

[madwriter]

>>They have too much to lose, and they also know Pakistan isn't really their friend anyway.<<

And that if a radical Islamic power takes over the government, Pakistan definitely won't be a friend to either.

[jordan179]

It might not as much as you think -- neither Pakistan nor India is an oil producing and exporting nation. The possible hike would come if the fighting closed the Persian Gulf, but note that the Pakistani Navy isn't likelly to last long even if America sits it out.

[tagryn]

The Iranians may well decide they don't have a dog in this hunt. On the face of it both Pakistan and Iran are Muslim countries, however Pakistan is majority Sunni (vs. Iranian Shia) and more importantly is a major supporter of the Taliban, whom Iran considers enemies*. Furthermore, in the Great Game scheme the mullahs seem to be playing, weakening or even eliminating the Taliban and Sunni Pakistan in their East while hopefully driving a wedge between India and the Americans by supporting India would seem to be the smart play. With a quiet eastern border, Iran can devote its energy towards what it sees as more fertile pastures for power grabs in Iraq and beyond.

* - exempting Iranian client groups like Hekmatyar's, which Iran would probably keep out of any Pakistani/Indian conflict in the hopes of preserving them for later use to try and establish influence in western Afghanistan, which is the eastern extent of what Iran sees as its legitimate sphere of influence.

[jordan179]

Good point regarding the conflict of Iranian and Pakistani ideology and interests. It is also undeniable that part of the price we will pay for a hostile policy toward Pakistan will be the loss of our opportunity to stop Iran from acquiring atomic weapons. OTOH, given that Pakistan has revealed her own treachery, stopping Pakistan, which has already acquired atomic weapons, assumes a higher priority.

[zornhau]

Isn't Pakistan fighting the Taliban at the moment? If so, might this whole thing be an attempt to force Pakistan into a war with India, thus diverting resources from rooting out the terrorists, and possibly radicalizing the population?

[jordan179]

It most certainly is such an attempt. Unfortunately, what all this has shown is that the Pakistani Army is independent of the Government: in other words, the elected Pakistani Government does not really rule Pakistan. The Indians must now consider the Pakistani Army the real rulers of Pakistan, and the Pakistani Army's policy toward India is warlike. The Pakistani Army regards the Terrorists as its allies, not its foes. Hence, Pakistan has now become the de facto enemy of both America and India.

[zornhau]

This just shows that some elements of the military can wreak mayhem in India. It does not show that those elements are in control. A war, however, would put them in control.

[jordan179]

This just shows that some elements of the military can wreak mayhem in India. It does not show that those elements are in control.

If the Pakistani Government is in control of Pakistan, then that Government is responsible for any "mayhem" being "wreaked" in India by the Pakistani Army. If the Pakistani Army is in control, then Pakistan has just attacked India, and more than once. If nobody is in control of Pakistan, then Pakistan is terra nullis and India may legitimately enter this terriotry to deal with brigands who are raiding Pakistan.

There is no state of control of Pakistan under which Pakistani forces may raid India, and India not be allowed to reply. In fact, the right of self-defense is guaranteed both under the old Grotian system and under the Charter of the UN.

A war, however, would put them in control.

Indeed -- until India won the war, and as part of the price of peace demanded the handover of those individuals to India to stand trial for war crimes. What's your point?