Indian Army Backed out of Pakistan Attack

#1
Asia Times

Article states that Indian Air Force & Navy were ready to attack Pakistan, but the Army told the politicians that they weren't ready.

Instead, the Indians will respond to the Mumbai attacks via covert action.

If the article is correct, we've had a let off.

Wonder what - if any - changes this will lead to in the Indian forces?
 
#2
I fear that's just postponed the reckoning. As it says in the article:
...
Meanwhile, the prospects of an India-Pakistan conflict are not over. India's army chief, General Deepak Kapoor, said last week that Pakistan had redeployed troops from its Afghan border to the western frontier with India. "The Indian army has factored this in its planning," Kapoor said.
The Pakistani military is not at all keen on doing our dirty work up against its assets in Waristan. The distraction of a war with the idolaters down South will have many attractions for some. There was even talk that it would leave Pakistan's nuclear arsenal conveniently exposed to theft though an opportunistic coup by the lunatic hard right in the Pak military would be a more likely goal and that is probably more frightening especially when you consider how they behaved in Bangladesh.

There's a disturbing level of nonchalance about this situation in stark contrast to the near hysteria over Qom's infant nuke program. This points out the worldwide consequences of a major nuclear exchange between these two actors:
...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) studied the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. In the Princeton University team scenario five air bursts over each country's major cities left 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured. The NRDC team itself studied 24 ground explosions involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan's attack on seven major Indian cities: 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. 15 million people in each country would be threatened by the fallout from the attack. Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. Eben Harrell recently quoted Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, who participated in the original nuclear winter research, "a scenario in which each country used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons believed to be in their arsenals, enough firepower to kill around 20 million people. The amount of smoke produced by these explosions would block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history" unquote.

Dr Ira Helfand's assessment: "The explosions would set off massive fires, which would produce plumes of black smoke. The sun would heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere - that's the layer above the troposphere, where we live - where there is no rain to clear it out. It would be blown across the globe and block the sun. The effect would not be a nuclear winter, but it would be colder than the little ice age [in the 17th and 18th centuries] and the change would happen very rapidly - over the course of a few weeks. Would you be able to see the smoke? The sky would not be blue. It would be grey. And what would the results be for humanity?" What about South Asia at ground zero of a nuclear holocaust?
...
That might take global warming off the agenda as well.

Bruce Riedel had this to say recently:
...
"If there is a nuclear war in our lifetimes, it's most likely between Pakistan and India," Riedel said in an interview before his talk.

If there is another 9/11-type event, it will come from Pakistan, Riedel said.

Riedel was on Clinton's staff in 1999 when he wrote a memo that contributed to Clinton's efforts to engage with the Pakistanis. But that effort was foiled by a 1999 coup by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Riedel said.

Riedel decided to study the Middle East after growing up as the child of a political adviser at the U.N. He received a bachelor's degree from Brown University and a master's degree from Harvard. A Brookings Institution fellow since 2006, he unofficially began advising then-Sen. Barack Obama on foreign policy affairs in April 2007.

Pakistan, the world's second-largest Muslim country that's twice the size of California, is trying to become a democracy, Riedel said. But each time the country takes steps toward democracy, there is a coup, he said.

"We need a stable and efficient democracy in Pakistan," Riedel said.

Economic aid is the best way to help Pakistan, he said. Riedel acknowledged the U.S. is not in the best position to provide economic aid in the form of money.

A simple way to help Pakistan would be to allow the country to sell more textiles in the U.S., Riedel said.

"It puts people to work and particularly empowers women," he said.

Riedel said some would object to more textile trade with Pakistan. "There are textile growers in the U.S. who don't want cheap competition," Riedel said.

These companies are also hurting, but failing to help Pakistan in any way is the worst possible alternative, Riedel said.

Pakistan has about 100 nuclear weapons, Riedel said. And although Iran is frequently cited as a nuclear threat in the Middle East, it has yet to possess any nuclear weapons, he said.

"Pakistan is in many ways the more dangerous problem," he said.
...
 
#3
If anything does kick off then the supply lines to NATO forces in AFG will be cut on day 1. I reckon that the US have been leaning on and/or bribing India behind closed doors to keep things quiet. It's also why the US has been courting Moscow like there's no tomorrow to get an alternative supply line set up through the rest of the 'stans.

It's also why the US is going to have to keep Moscow sweet while troops remain in AFG, the supplies might not go through Russia proper but Moscow will be able to disrupt or stop the flow.

Oh, and not forgetting the little problem that the ethnic, religious etc situation on the ground means that neither AFG or Pakistan are viable nation states with their current borders; so the biggest external destabilising force on Pakistan is our work in AFG.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top