India and Pakistan

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I felt this is getting to the point where it needs its own thread.

Private armies and the Taliban?

Pilgrimage has its risks.

Private funeral held for rape victim.

The Hind Peninsula is the second most populous area in the world after China. I don't think it can be ignored. It is in the news more and more. Both Pakistan and India are members of the nuclear club.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Thankfully, the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons has some what diminished the intensity of the conflict. Both states are rational enough to realize that open warfare between the two might lead to nuclear escalation. Neither side wants that.

What would be worrisome though is if the Taliban manage to take over the country. It remains to be seen if they are rational enough to realize and care about the consequences of going nuclear.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There does seem to be a strong Taliban presence in Pakistan. Certainly part of Pakistan is similar to the wild country on the Afghan border, and it appears to be a nest of tribal satraps.

Jinnah did not do the people a favour by taking them all into the mountains. I gather from what history we have been allowed to see that things were pretty violent in 1947.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I recently read an article in Scientific American (January 2013 issue, so not on news stands yet) that India and Pakistan are the most likely candidates of teaching the world to completely destroy all nuclear arms within 50 years. The other scenario is of an extinction event with climate change and resource depletion triggering conflict culminating in the 60 Second War. I hope you understand the implications of the quote, "The only way the world is likely to wake up and realize it can't live with nuclear weapons would be something that would change human character, perhaps even a small (if we're lucky) nuclear war."

--Ocram

[astronelson 339]

The Hind Peninsula is the second most populous area in the world after China. I don't think it can be ignored. It is in the news more and more. Both Pakistan and India are members of the nuclear club.

There's no "second" about it, the combined population of India and Pakistan is 45 million greater than the population of China. Throw in Bangladesh and you've got 1.56 billion total, 209 million more than China's paltry 1.35 billion.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I recently read an article in Scientific American (January 2013 issue, so not on news stands yet) that India and Pakistan are the most likely candidates of teaching the world to completely destroy all nuclear arms within 50 years. The other scenario is of an extinction event with climate change and resource depletion triggering conflict culminating in the 60 Second War. I hope you understand the implications of the quote, "The only way the world is likely to wake up and realize it can't live with nuclear weapons would be something that would change human character, perhaps even a small (if we're lucky) nuclear war."

--Ocram

So far the trend has been that conflicts de-escalated and de-intensified once both sides got access to nuclear weapons. The logic behind it is perhaps cynical, but it does lead to better results. While of course resource scarcity may trigger the conflict to intensify again, both sides know that once the bomb is used, its over for both sides. They are much more useful as a deterrent rather than a tactical weapon.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"...both sides now that once the bomb..." implies that It had been used there. I really hope you mean "...both sides know that once the..." .

This is one typo that can really change the whole meaning. I realize that English is not your first language, but you really should go back and fix this typo because it is of such importance.

Anyway, everyone has had CBW capability since the end of WW I, and nobody has ever used it on a battlefield. Of course, we don't have battlefields much any more with everyone trying to win from the air, which is patently impossible. The main purpose in warfare is to make the other guy do what you want, not wipe them out. Uh ... or is it? Boots on the ground with an occupying force is the only way, IMHO. Since the Korean conflict (still raging) and that dog's breakfast in Viet Nam, the taste for invasion and running around with battle groups seems to have cooled. Let us all truly hope it will stay that way.

A happy and prosperous new year to all.

[Jack³ 291]

I hope that if the Taliban gains control of Pakistan, that the United States will step in immediately, before any damage can be done. Saddam said he had a bomb, and that was a threat to Israel. If an organization like the Taliban has power in Pakistan, they are potentially a threat to Americans in Pakistan and Israel as well.

I think chemical warfare will not be used until someone gets really desperate, as a last resort before something truly terrible, like nuclear war. I don't believe the main purpose is to eliminate the other, but have them give into your demands, like you said. Both sides want something, even if it is just peace.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Actually, Saddam Hussein openly used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the long and bitter Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and then continued with much more infamously publicized gas attacks against the Iranian-allied rebel Kurds. As Saddam's grew more ambitious, gassing his own Kurdish population was considered shocking to the West, while gassing the Iranian pariahs--not so much! In the 1930s, Fascist Italy used mustard gas against the Ethiopians, and Imperial Japan used a variety of both chemical and biological weapons against China. While ostensibly targetted against jungle vegetation providing cover to the infiltrating North Vietnamese and their allies, the U.S. spread Agent Orange around South Vietnam, poisoning much of the countryside and the rural population. If there is any pattern...it is probably the aggression of powerful, technical, industrial states desperately resorting to such weapons to aid their smaller forces against less advanced yet unyielding states with large, intractable populations.

[LexusInfernus 908]

"...both sides now that once the bomb..." implies that It had been used there. I really hope you mean "...both sides know that once the..." .

This is one typo that can really change the whole meaning. I realize that English is not your first language, but you really should go back and fix this typo because it is of such importance.

Oops, you're right, that was a typo. Thanks for spotting it

Anyway, everyone has had CBW capability since the end of WW I, and nobody has ever used it on a battlefield. Of course, we don't have battlefields much any more with everyone trying to win from the air, which is patently impossible. The main purpose in warfare is to make the other guy do what you want, not wipe them out. Uh ... or is it? Boots on the ground with an occupying force is the only way, IMHO. Since the Korean conflict (still raging) and that dog's breakfast in Viet Nam, the taste for invasion and running around with battle groups seems to have cooled. Let us all truly hope it will stay that way.

Do not underestimate Air Power. It had a significant contribution to the allied victory over the Axis powers, as well as it being one of the main factors that contributed to the earlier German success, Air Power was the only thing that prevented the South Korean forces from total annihilation by the North Koreans during the first stages of the Korean war. Air power was mostly responsible for every tactical victory in Vietnam, even though it turned out that as a strategic weapon it didn't work out that well during that war. Air Power was vital for the nuclear Balance of Power which prevented WW3 from happening. And today Air Power has actually played a vital role in Serbia, Libya and the earlier stages of Afghanistan.

Of course, Air Power has its limitations, but overall, Air Power is far more useful than boots on the ground if you want something done.

A happy and prosperous new year to all.

To you as well

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And the beat goes on.

The number of armed outfits in Pakistan is truly huge. Hate seems to be endemic in that part of the world.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And the beat goes on.

The number of armed outfits in Pakistan is truly huge. Hate seems to be endemic in that part of the world.

With a little luck this will only turn out to be working against those terrorists. There is a good chance that specifically targeting women who are doing good work helping people wont score them any points in the eyes of the local population. And the support of the local population is key to a successful insurgency.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Stirring the pot?

Since when is the US at war with Pakistan? If this is their new foreign policy, God help everyone.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Didn't they do it before? I thought it was already policy to bomb Taliban forces in Pakistan.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The question I had in mind is who will the war-hawks want to attack next?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

That reminds me of the TV Show Last Resort which is a TV show where the whole plot revolves around the first episode where a nuclear submarine refuses to bomb Pakistan.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Somehow, I don't think the submarine refused. More likely the Captain.

And turning to India's latest public brouhaha.

It would appear that five of the six perps are being charged with murder, and the sixth is a juvenile and his case is being considered carefully.

[LexusInfernus 908]

About time India does something about its culture of misogyny. Or not, them aborting all the girls will make it easier to get a population decline in the future. There are already about 15 million Indian men that can't get a women because there aren't any.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

That is no excuse for rape. Cultural and population pressures aside, it is too late to talk about women's rights when the action should have taken place many years ago. Sexual selection by mechanical means is against the rules of nature and the consequences have become clear. Interfere with evolution and you are just asking for trouble.

[LexusInfernus 908]

There are no excuses for rape. But rape is perhaps partly a consequence when society systematically hates women the way they do in India.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The entire eastern culture seems to be male based. I wonder if they had a historical matriarchy the way our forebears did (about 4000 years ago now)? The Mother goddess was in charge for a long time, but the male oriented gods (Zeus/Jupiter, for instance) eventually supplanted her. This is why the ancient Greeks kept their women under wraps. The Romans had a secret cult of "The Mother", and men were completely excluded from this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Sectarian violence continues in Pakistan.

Like all schisms the differences between the Sunni and the Shia are trivial to most observers but I can assure everyone that it is not so trivial to them. However, I wonder how many of the activists on either side know what these differences are.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Gang rape continues in India.

People don't seem to be able to take a hint.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

India considers death penalty for rape/murder.

Death threats never seem to reduce crime.

When you plan revenge, dig two graves.

I suspect that if the media stopped reporting Taliban atrocities, they would diminish.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Internal troubles in Pakistan appear to be sectarian.

 

Sunnis vs. Shias.  Is the world not getting sick of hearing about this? 

 

Imagine the fun and games in the middle ages as various levels of the Reformation took place.  I think we've seen this all before, but things are are lot more "explosive" now.  Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of fuel systems and chemistry can make a bomb these days to say nothing of some rather deadly gases.

[macvirt 361]

The entire eastern culture seems to be male based. I wonder if they had a historical matriarchy the way our forebears did (about 4000 years ago now)? The Mother goddess was in charge for a long time, but the male oriented gods (Zeus/Jupiter, for instance) eventually supplanted her. This is why the ancient Greeks kept their women under wraps. The Romans had a secret cult of "The Mother", and men were completely excluded from this.

 

The west, in spite of appearances is really not that different. Christianity used to be a balanced organised form of belief where the matriarchal was equal to the patriarchal. Until ofcourse a certain emperor got cold feet in his marriage and bought some policy changes that were received warmly by a clergy fearful of issues in the conversion of what they called barbarians who in their eyes had a far too strong matriarchal element in both belief and culture.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Matriarchal societies were common in the ancient world as well.  The ancient Greeks had just emerged from such a system and it really shows the way they kept their women sequestered.  If you dig into antiquity you'll find some interesting things.  For example, the Romans had an open secret cult of the Mother in direct competition with the pantheon of male gods, but it was apparently run only by a group of patrician women.  Often there was a woman behind the power of any given man, at least in the pre-Christian era.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Another rape.  Children are not safe?

 

Because of the imbalance in population due to the preference for male children, the Indians are now reaping the whirlwind.

[larelo6 3]

I read that Talibans are actually non Afghans who were financially and militarily supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to control Afghanistan. Is that right?

 

Anyone knows which president of Pakistan who first plunged Pakistan into all this trouble?

 

And anyone has a great article about this misogyny in India?