7 ms·

I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi gove

by nblgbg 1y ago

I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi government wants to project strength. They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. So, they targeted some areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). In response, Pakistan claimed to have shot down four Indian aircraft and a drone. However, so far, they haven't provided any pictures or locations to support these claims. Both sides will likely exchange fire along the border, and the situation will eventually calm down. Each side will claim victory in its own way.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested Proxy war between U.S. and China. We’re moving the naval assets that were bombing the Houthis. India seizing Pakistan-administered Kashmir cuts Islamabad off from China.
- sandspar 1y ago
  The Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's.
  - slt2021 1y ago
    It is useful for the US to isolate China from Iranian oil resources. Currently Iranian oil can go via Pakistan to China. Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war. If some people die on both side it is acceptable for the Us, because these are not Us citizens dying
    - maxglute 1y ago
      CPEC isn't viable energy coordidor yet - no completed oil/gas infra from Iran to Pak to PRC. Which only leaves trucks, and the roads not designed to support 5000+ trucks per day for Irans 1m barrels per day.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war. This is realpolitik 101, and every powerful society does it. Like, India didn't help sever Bangladesh f/k/a East Pakistan from Islamabad because it was being nice. (I'm not saying every society exploits every old conflict. Just that if you need to do something, you start with extant fault lines. Like, if you're going to war with Nazi Germany you don't sideline the Soviets and British because that's mean or whatnot.) Also, the problem with Pakistan isn't that its ports could be used to import oil. It's that the ports are being configured for Chinese blue-water operations.
      - slt2021 1y ago
        I can understand seizing opportunities in situations like this, however I cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place. https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistans-defence-minister-admits-support-for-terror-groups-says-did-this-dirty-work-for-us/amp_articleshow/120608504.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistans-defence-m...
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place With all due respect, what you and I support isn’t super relevant to what will happen over the coming weeks.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      It doesn't matter what it is, or where it's happening in the world, some people will always make it about the US. Always. It's tiresome.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        The US is the third largest country on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and controls the currency that other countries denominate their international debt in. There's very little that happens in the world that does not touch or get touched by the United States. The USA doesn't have much choice in this.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's India is negotiating trade deals and weapons purchases with the West. (Historically, Moscow was its security source.) Pakistan got some F-16s in 2022, but otherwise has been deepending ties with Beijing. It's wild to suggest America's cold war with China is orthogonal to this conflict.
    - sandspar 1y ago
      Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US. The US and China have interests in the area, so maybe I shouldn't have said the word "orthogonal". But the original commenter said a conflict between India and Pakistan would be a "US-China proxy war". Come on. India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading. And neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US Not how proxy wars work. > India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading Not how proxy wars work. The backers enable. The proxies fight. > neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war This is how proxy wars work. They literally don’t if the proxies realise they’re fighting a foreign war on their homeland.
        random42 1y ago
        It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US. Source: I am an Indian.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US Nobody said as much. The original comment described how this can escalate.
- postingawayonhn 1y ago
  The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).
  - smt88 1y ago
    Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.
    - happyopossum 1y ago
      Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.
      - smt88 1y ago
        "No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart" There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    "US isn't interested in picking sides" but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.) Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.
pokstad 1y ago
Thanks for stating these forecasts so authoritatively. Or maybe we should admit this is uncharted waters and we shouldn't downplay what is possible?
- ivape 1y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.
  - dd_xplore 1y ago
    Like US co-ordinated with Paxtan to destroy laden? The laden who was hiding near a military base in Paxtan?
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      This always seems really disingenuous to me. He was hiding in an extremely concealed manner. Never ever went outside, and it's not as if the Pakistani military can just break into every house nearby and search for him everywhere. How they caught him was crazy in and of itself, and required fake vaccination drives, another thing no military can do to its own people to catch terrorists. I really don't think they are blameless at all, at all, but this kind of stuff feels conspiracy-level to me. This was the most wanted guy in the world, no country, no army could plausibly have concealed him and coordinated that effort to keep him hidden. Someone along the chain would have given him up
      - ganarajpr 1y ago
        Lol, whats disingenuous is your arguments, honestly. So, either you have to argue that Pakistan's military is extremely idiotic / naive that it could not even detect a known terrorist living just around the corner or you have to argue that they knowingly kept him in their "shadow". The vast majority of the people believe its the latter - you are free to believe that they were idiots.
tonyhart7 1y ago
so its saving face attack??? idk about that
kumarvvr 1y ago
[flagged]
- r00fus 1y ago
  [flagged]
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  There isn't proof that this terrorist attack was directed by Pakistan. The terrorists themselves haven't been caught. India also supports terrorists in Pakistan (like the BLA who took hostages on a train a few months back), allegedly. There's no morally superior actor here, unfortunately. EDIT: There are many other strange things about the parent comment like why are you upset about the word "militant" instead of "terrorist"? They are functionally synonyms. What militant group isn't a terrorist group? And why is it opposite calling the BJP Hindu nationalist? It is a term they themselves coined and use to describe themselves?? EDIT 2: the original commenter is using a very cleverly edited clip from a different time period to support his claims. But watch the full clip and judge for yourselves. He is clearly referring to training the Afghan Mujahideen 3 decades ago, who the US also supported in the Soviet-Afghan War: https://youtube.com/shorts/lkO8fR4vlgA https://youtube.com/shorts/lkO8fR4vlgA
  - kumarvvr 1y ago
    > There isn't proof that this terrorist attack was directed by Pakistan Their defense minister admitted to it a few days ago to a Western Media channel.
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      I don't think that's true, but either way, do you agree at least that the same accusation can be plausibly levied against India's support for terrorist outfits in Pakistan?
      - kumarvvr 1y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLwHK_22pm0 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLwHK_22pm0
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
aprilthird2021 1y ago
I think you're mostly correct. This does mirror the 2019 flare up, and yeah ultimately neither side wants their populace to figure out they're not as strong or prepared as they claim. For Pakistan after squashing the democratically popular leader, they can't afford to appear weak (the only thing they can lean on is strength to explain to the populace why they are better than a democratically elected leader). For India, also, the BJP has been waning in popularity after almost a decade of incumbency, this could be the straw that loses them their major support.
greatwhitenorth 1y ago
[flagged]
madaxe_again 1y ago
[flagged]
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Geopolitics can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    That's incredible. Cribbing.
- graemep 1y ago
  > What possible reason would Putin have for invading Ukraine? He said he would, and what would trigger the decision at least as early as 2008.
- arp242 1y ago
  And many things didn't come to pass. The entire business between Israel and Iran from last year springs to mind (also recall that many feared the Bush administration would seek war with Iran, which never happened). The Cuban missile crisis was resolved, and there was no nuclear war in general during the Cold War. etc. etc. In the end this is just information-free hand-waving which says nothing about the current situation.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
th3iedkid 1y ago
Looks like some of the locations were deep within Pakistan and were targeted precision strikes. They have also released video footage of many of the strikes https://idrw.org/indian-airstrikes-target-terror-infrastructure-in-pakistan-a-clear-map-of-operation-sindoor/ https://idrw.org/indian-airstrikes-target-terror-infrastruct...
- datadrivenangel 1y ago
  Massive misinformation out there, so be skeptical of anything that flatters anybody.
jjude 1y ago
> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, Pakistan has nothing to lose. So there are lots of incentives for Pakistan army to go rogue.
- pm90 1y ago
  This isn’t how anything works. Both India and Pakistan depend on imported military hardware. Every time they’ve fought each other they’ve been embargoed. So every kind of engagement has an implicit timer before the military literally runs out of munitions to continue any kind of serious war.
  - jjude 1y ago
    This is what then PM Nawaz Sharif said about Kargil war: > After the war, Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Kargil conflict, claimed that he was unaware of the plans, and that he first learned about the situation when he received an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, his counterpart in India. Sharif attributed the plan to Musharraf and "just two or three of his cronies", a view shared by some Pakistani writers who have stated that only four generals, including Musharraf, knew of the plan. Possible he was lying. But this is an accepted view even in the Pakistan.
- saagarjha 1y ago
  Pakistan has a population of 250 million people. But, of course, an army can go rogue regardless; they have no need to follow the words of economists (or anyone, really).
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Pakistan has everything to lose. They are totally dependent on India for reliable water supply, i.e. for getting something other thana drought-flood cycle. Military action is only going to lead to India being less willing to give them an even supply. They are totally dependent on keeping India happy, and now of course, they've failed to do that by allowing these recent murders.
- conradfr 1y ago
enugu 1y ago
> They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization remains. The goal of the attacks would be to make any future terrorist attack an expensive option for the Pakistani military as opposed to something which can be done routinely. There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.
- lazide 1y ago
  1) Pakistan is a lot less stable right now than 2019 (as is the world). 2) The putative organization is in Pakistan, and likely supported by the military. The biggest threat India is doing (IMO) is threatening the water supply. That is getting everyone in Pakistan’s attention. These strikes are more about managing the local political situation in India, which requires some degree of obvious violent retribution.
  - enugu 1y ago
    The incentives of the Pakistani generals to permit organizations like LeT to commit further terrorist attacks is a different domain from whatever the local political situation is like in India. There has been a past regime where Pakistani generals were able to train and send militants regularly to conduct terror attacks in India. Without an effective response from India putting pressure on these generals, that can easily become the new normal again.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Do you think (plausibly) threatening to cut off water to large swathes of Pakistan, or blowing up some random terrorist camps, is the bigger actual threat?
      - enugu 1y ago
krisoft 1y ago
> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.
- ashoeafoot 1y ago
  More important ,ever since the multipolar great games resumed , they will have customers for nukes. Trump really was the final nail on deterence reliance ..
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 1y ago
    That may be a long-term problem, but right now it's like worrying about high cholesterol during a knife fight.
    - ashoeafoot 1y ago
      Its not, you goto look at how the actors in the region act and invest. Some of the regions rich seem remarkable calm towards a muklear armed iran.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        Can Pakistan can ship nukes to Iran fast enough for the Iranian economy to supply in return a militarily useful quantity of anti-air and anti-missile defence systems? On a timescale of "shooting currently happening"? If not, that's a problem for the rest of the decade, whereas an escalating situation on this border could've already evaporated a few cities between me having read the headline 20 minutes ago and pressing the [reply] button now.
        ivell 1y ago
conradfr 1y ago
Yet people died.
arjun1296 1y ago
[dead]
Guptos 1y ago
I hope this is true

by nblgbg 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested Proxy war between U.S. and China. We’re moving the naval assets that were bombing the Houthis. India seizing Pakistan-administered Kashmir cuts Islamabad off from China.

sandspar 1y ago
The Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's.
- slt2021 1y ago
  It is useful for the US to isolate China from Iranian oil resources. Currently Iranian oil can go via Pakistan to China. Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war. If some people die on both side it is acceptable for the Us, because these are not Us citizens dying
  - maxglute 1y ago
    CPEC isn't viable energy coordidor yet - no completed oil/gas infra from Iran to Pak to PRC. Which only leaves trucks, and the roads not designed to support 5000+ trucks per day for Irans 1m barrels per day.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war. This is realpolitik 101, and every powerful society does it. Like, India didn't help sever Bangladesh f/k/a East Pakistan from Islamabad because it was being nice. (I'm not saying every society exploits every old conflict. Just that if you need to do something, you start with extant fault lines. Like, if you're going to war with Nazi Germany you don't sideline the Soviets and British because that's mean or whatnot.) Also, the problem with Pakistan isn't that its ports could be used to import oil. It's that the ports are being configured for Chinese blue-water operations.
    - slt2021 1y ago
      I can understand seizing opportunities in situations like this, however I cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place. https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistans-defence-minister-admits-support-for-terror-groups-says-did-this-dirty-work-for-us/amp_articleshow/120608504.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistans-defence-m...
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place With all due respect, what you and I support isn’t super relevant to what will happen over the coming weeks.
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    It doesn't matter what it is, or where it's happening in the world, some people will always make it about the US. Always. It's tiresome.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      The US is the third largest country on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and controls the currency that other countries denominate their international debt in. There's very little that happens in the world that does not touch or get touched by the United States. The USA doesn't have much choice in this.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's India is negotiating trade deals and weapons purchases with the West. (Historically, Moscow was its security source.) Pakistan got some F-16s in 2022, but otherwise has been deepending ties with Beijing. It's wild to suggest America's cold war with China is orthogonal to this conflict.
  - sandspar 1y ago
    Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US. The US and China have interests in the area, so maybe I shouldn't have said the word "orthogonal". But the original commenter said a conflict between India and Pakistan would be a "US-China proxy war". Come on. India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading. And neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US Not how proxy wars work. > India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading Not how proxy wars work. The backers enable. The proxies fight. > neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war This is how proxy wars work. They literally don’t if the proxies realise they’re fighting a foreign war on their homeland.
      - random42 1y ago
        It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US. Source: I am an Indian.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US Nobody said as much. The original comment described how this can escalate.
postingawayonhn 1y ago
The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).
- smt88 1y ago
  Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.
  - happyopossum 1y ago
    Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.
    - smt88 1y ago
      "No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart" There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  "US isn't interested in picking sides" but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.) Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.

pokstad 1y ago

Thanks for stating these forecasts so authoritatively. Or maybe we should admit this is uncharted waters and we shouldn't downplay what is possible?

ivape 1y ago
It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.
- dd_xplore 1y ago
  Like US co-ordinated with Paxtan to destroy laden? The laden who was hiding near a military base in Paxtan?
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    This always seems really disingenuous to me. He was hiding in an extremely concealed manner. Never ever went outside, and it's not as if the Pakistani military can just break into every house nearby and search for him everywhere. How they caught him was crazy in and of itself, and required fake vaccination drives, another thing no military can do to its own people to catch terrorists. I really don't think they are blameless at all, at all, but this kind of stuff feels conspiracy-level to me. This was the most wanted guy in the world, no country, no army could plausibly have concealed him and coordinated that effort to keep him hidden. Someone along the chain would have given him up
    - ganarajpr 1y ago
      Lol, whats disingenuous is your arguments, honestly. So, either you have to argue that Pakistan's military is extremely idiotic / naive that it could not even detect a known terrorist living just around the corner or you have to argue that they knowingly kept him in their "shadow". The vast majority of the people believe its the latter - you are free to believe that they were idiots.

tonyhart7 1y ago

so its saving face attack??? idk about that

kumarvvr 1y ago

[flagged]

r00fus 1y ago
[flagged]
aprilthird2021 1y ago
There isn't proof that this terrorist attack was directed by Pakistan. The terrorists themselves haven't been caught. India also supports terrorists in Pakistan (like the BLA who took hostages on a train a few months back), allegedly. There's no morally superior actor here, unfortunately. EDIT: There are many other strange things about the parent comment like why are you upset about the word "militant" instead of "terrorist"? They are functionally synonyms. What militant group isn't a terrorist group? And why is it opposite calling the BJP Hindu nationalist? It is a term they themselves coined and use to describe themselves?? EDIT 2: the original commenter is using a very cleverly edited clip from a different time period to support his claims. But watch the full clip and judge for yourselves. He is clearly referring to training the Afghan Mujahideen 3 decades ago, who the US also supported in the Soviet-Afghan War: https://youtube.com/shorts/lkO8fR4vlgA https://youtube.com/shorts/lkO8fR4vlgA
- kumarvvr 1y ago
  > There isn't proof that this terrorist attack was directed by Pakistan Their defense minister admitted to it a few days ago to a Western Media channel.
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    I don't think that's true, but either way, do you agree at least that the same accusation can be plausibly levied against India's support for terrorist outfits in Pakistan?
    - kumarvvr 1y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLwHK_22pm0 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLwHK_22pm0

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

aprilthird2021 1y ago

I think you're mostly correct. This does mirror the 2019 flare up, and yeah ultimately neither side wants their populace to figure out they're not as strong or prepared as they claim. For Pakistan after squashing the democratically popular leader, they can't afford to appear weak (the only thing they can lean on is strength to explain to the populace why they are better than a democratically elected leader). For India, also, the BJP has been waning in popularity after almost a decade of incumbency, this could be the straw that loses them their major support.

greatwhitenorth 1y ago

[flagged]

madaxe_again 1y ago

[flagged]

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Geopolitics can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  That's incredible. Cribbing.
graemep 1y ago
> What possible reason would Putin have for invading Ukraine? He said he would, and what would trigger the decision at least as early as 2008.
arp242 1y ago
And many things didn't come to pass. The entire business between Israel and Iran from last year springs to mind (also recall that many feared the Bush administration would seek war with Iran, which never happened). The Cuban missile crisis was resolved, and there was no nuclear war in general during the Cold War. etc. etc. In the end this is just information-free hand-waving which says nothing about the current situation.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

th3iedkid 1y ago

Looks like some of the locations were deep within Pakistan and were targeted precision strikes. They have also released video footage of many of the strikes https://idrw.org/indian-airstrikes-target-terror-infrastructure-in-pakistan-a-clear-map-of-operation-sindoor/ https://idrw.org/indian-airstrikes-target-terror-infrastruct...

datadrivenangel 1y ago
Massive misinformation out there, so be skeptical of anything that flatters anybody.

jjude 1y ago

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, Pakistan has nothing to lose. So there are lots of incentives for Pakistan army to go rogue.

pm90 1y ago
This isn’t how anything works. Both India and Pakistan depend on imported military hardware. Every time they’ve fought each other they’ve been embargoed. So every kind of engagement has an implicit timer before the military literally runs out of munitions to continue any kind of serious war.
- jjude 1y ago
  This is what then PM Nawaz Sharif said about Kargil war: > After the war, Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Kargil conflict, claimed that he was unaware of the plans, and that he first learned about the situation when he received an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, his counterpart in India. Sharif attributed the plan to Musharraf and "just two or three of his cronies", a view shared by some Pakistani writers who have stated that only four generals, including Musharraf, knew of the plan. Possible he was lying. But this is an accepted view even in the Pakistan.
saagarjha 1y ago
Pakistan has a population of 250 million people. But, of course, an army can go rogue regardless; they have no need to follow the words of economists (or anyone, really).
impossiblefork 1y ago
Pakistan has everything to lose. They are totally dependent on India for reliable water supply, i.e. for getting something other thana drought-flood cycle. Military action is only going to lead to India being less willing to give them an even supply. They are totally dependent on keeping India happy, and now of course, they've failed to do that by allowing these recent murders.
conradfr 1y ago

enugu 1y ago

> They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization remains. The goal of the attacks would be to make any future terrorist attack an expensive option for the Pakistani military as opposed to something which can be done routinely. There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.

lazide 1y ago
1) Pakistan is a lot less stable right now than 2019 (as is the world). 2) The putative organization is in Pakistan, and likely supported by the military. The biggest threat India is doing (IMO) is threatening the water supply. That is getting everyone in Pakistan’s attention. These strikes are more about managing the local political situation in India, which requires some degree of obvious violent retribution.
- enugu 1y ago
  The incentives of the Pakistani generals to permit organizations like LeT to commit further terrorist attacks is a different domain from whatever the local political situation is like in India. There has been a past regime where Pakistani generals were able to train and send militants regularly to conduct terror attacks in India. Without an effective response from India putting pressure on these generals, that can easily become the new normal again.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Do you think (plausibly) threatening to cut off water to large swathes of Pakistan, or blowing up some random terrorist camps, is the bigger actual threat?
    - enugu 1y ago

krisoft 1y ago

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.

ashoeafoot 1y ago
More important ,ever since the multipolar great games resumed , they will have customers for nukes. Trump really was the final nail on deterence reliance ..
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 1y ago
  That may be a long-term problem, but right now it's like worrying about high cholesterol during a knife fight.
  - ashoeafoot 1y ago
    Its not, you goto look at how the actors in the region act and invest. Some of the regions rich seem remarkable calm towards a muklear armed iran.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      Can Pakistan can ship nukes to Iran fast enough for the Iranian economy to supply in return a militarily useful quantity of anti-air and anti-missile defence systems? On a timescale of "shooting currently happening"? If not, that's a problem for the rest of the decade, whereas an escalating situation on this border could've already evaporated a few cities between me having read the headline 20 minutes ago and pressing the [reply] button now.
      - ivell 1y ago

conradfr 1y ago

Yet people died.

arjun1296 1y ago

[dead]

Guptos 1y ago

I hope this is true