If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
In this case though, and in any other case there are never any victors in a nuclear war. When India does win, of which i have no doubt, it will have won it at the cost of most of it's own people, and for that price will have claimed a charred, radioactive wasteland where Pakistan used to be.
If I were India, I would be scared by threats from the US, EU or China. Hell I'd be scared by threats from Britain alone. We still have many more nukes than the Indians, and the Pakistanis combined, and we can launch them from here and from submarines in the area. However the war between Pakistan and India would be a roughly even match, Pakistan could use tactical nukes to wipe out troop formations, and in response India would wipe out a city or 5. It won't end until 1 straggly Indian tank makes it to Islamabad, only for its crew to die from radiation poisoning.
They will go to war. Thats the only thing that will happen.
Someones on the defensive today. No need to get stroppy.
They haven't in the past, what makes you think they will now?
The only reason Pakistan gave the USA access to it's land was because they threatened to add them to their "axis of evil" if they didn't, not because the US threatend to impose trade sanctions on them.
Most of India and Pakistan's important trade is with places in the region and the far east. If the USA slaps embargoes on them they will find themselves severely short of Nike Trainers and Adidas tops, but i doubt it will affect them very much apart from the few pence per shoe they miss out on.
Thats what I really think unfortunately.
Remember that this isnt a recent thing. Theyve been fighting for 50 years..India has been receiving terrorist attacks for 50 years and have lost tens of thousands of lives as a result.
Nobody will threaten them with force as we wouldnt be willing to lose soldiers over such a fight. Economic sanctions? I dont think that will bother them too much to be honest.
Im positive that this will go to war within the coming months.
Commonly disregarded - or hidden - fact is that most of the US troops who were in combat in Vietnam were volunteers...
Go figure. There really are some who will toe the line, rather than weenie out and submit to anything rather than fight. Once within the military, you yield individual will so that the whole can function, but as a volunteer, it was still a matter of choice.
Cowardice, however, that one is more easily found...
Never personally stood ready, have you? If you had, then you would understand that it is the "being willing" which deters the confrontation... Like the nuclear treaty signed yesterday, after the US had stepped away from previous treaty. Thought we were barbaric war-mongers, didn't you? It is convincing the enemy that you are willing that prevents the fight... if it don't, then you will wind up there anyway, unless slavery appeals to your poverty of dignity.
Sounds an awful lot like you were submitting to someone elses agenda. I foyu admit that the individauals decisions should be waived so that the whole can function properly then how can you rule out so-called 'cowardice' if this were adjudged to allow the whole to function better?
Yes.
Because if the bully is that serious, he'll bully you to death anyway, and if you submit, that doesn't even have a cost.
The fact is, if you stand up to a bully they back down. In an all-out Nuke-fest, India still holds the advantage over Pakistan, and the Pakistanis know it.
Pakistan would be completely obliterated by the vastly numerically and technically superior nukes of India - there wouldn't be much but craters .
India on the other hand is a far larger land-mass and people in the remote areas may survive even the fallout (though I certainly concede that the country would be finished as any kind of political, economic or social power).
The guy in Pakistan who presses that button knows he is killing himself, his family and the entire history and landscape of his nation. Since I'd presume they don't give that access to anyone who isn't sane, I don't believe that Pakistan will ever use Nukes, and unfortunately for Pakistan, I don't think India will believe it either.
[ 26-05-2002: Message edited by: Black_Knight ]
Now they'll have to use diplomacy to back down from a land-war they can't afford, rather than the threat of nukes that they knew they could never use unless they were all about to die anyway.
No.
Because pride is at stake. So they will skirmish a lot and many lives will be lost on both sides. Huge amounts of government money will be wasted on warfare that they'll eventually have to abandon, and that will have long-term effects on the economy, starving the education, health and social services.
Only after they feel they have skirmished enough to look suitably fierce and steadfast will they do what they must, which is make peace.
That means that all the sacrifice of lives and economics, not to mention the political ramifications will be for nothing, and a complete waste. That my friend is the tragedy of political posturing when the end result is foreknown.
In the real world - outside of the cyber realm - people like you, who believe that submission and subjugation are preferable to conflict, will always be ruled by those who are willing and able to pursue the conflict.
You seem to forget that I have personally walked into many moments where my survival was doubtful, not because I was "forced", but because I believed in the fight, and was committed. In the civilian world, I have put my life in peril many times to accomplish what I believe in; that does not make me a "hero", but simply a man.
Given the choice between submission/subjugation or death, you would submit. Me? Death is preferable. A life devoid of honor and dignity is not worth living. And I would kill you without emotion before I would allow you to subjugate me.
For you to fight? I believe that you would require rage. For me? No more emotion than simply taking out the trash. A task which needs to be done.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased with chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me ~ give me liberty or give me death!"
Yeah... rhetoric. Also my core value.
As long as there are those who share the same belief system, and will fight to the death to preserve that belief, then the parasites will have their illusion of freedom. Illusion? Because until you have personally fought the fight, you have no real appreciation for what it means, nor what it costs.
You would give up a huge chunk of your nation to an enemy and not fight. Me? You will die, or we both shall die, but that portion of my nation will not be surrendered before I die.
I have been told that your country views William Wallace as a traitor. I view Geronimo as a warrior, worthy of respect, even tho he fought against my nation. I respect men who will not submit to subjugation or slavery. Cowards and parasites disgust me... REGARDLESS of how educated, morally superior and genteel they claim to be. In the end, it is all just more words, rather than backing their belief with their life.
So who are you?
Tell me you would die, or I would die, or we both will die: someone would die before you would submit to subjugation, and then you would have my respect. Until then, you are only a parasite or a coward, a sheep to be herded - or slaughtered - as I see fit...
Explain my parasitical behaviour please?
You also avoided the question, you were made to do what you did not want to do, why is that not submission?
Ah... we have someone in attendence who comprehends the difference between bluster and commitment, and in making certain that the opponent knows the difference.
As my grandad would say, "Make no threats; keep your promises..."
What that actually meant was that each export would be reviewed on an case by case basis. The orders can still go through, they just need to be agreed first.
This on the same day that Straw flies out to argue for peace...argue for peace, arm them fo war.
Nice to see a firm, consistent action being taken <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Then again, maybe not
Surely Jack Straw and Tony B. Liar should be inline for a Nobel Peace Prize by now <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 27-05-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
Gentlemen, you are weapons free
Most of India's tanks, jets, ships and helicopers are British or British design. Their main battle tank is the Vickers and the Chieftan. The Vickers is a British designed, Indian built tank. Designed and built in the late 60's as a replacement for the ageing 1st generation tanks that they owned. The Chieftan and Vickers are both formidable, and although old have been improved and upgraded over the years. They would put up a significant fight against the best of the Western built tanks such as the Challenger and the Abrahms. They will easily annihilate the ex-soviet tanks owned by the Pakistani army. They have approximately 3490 tanks, all of which are either 2nd or 3rd generation MBT's. The Pakistani army consists of mainly 2nd generation, T-55's, T-60's and T-72's.
Airforce-The Indian airforce contains a mixture of British Harriers, American F-16's and Russian Mig-29's and is large and formidable.
Their Navy consists of one aircraft carrier, which used to be HMS Hermes I believe that is equipped with Harriers and helicopters and has been upgraded and improved to the same level as existing British built carriers. They also have 11 destroyers and 8 frigates.
The Pakistani airforce consists of mainly American and British equipment, however it is not as well maintained, and has not been subject to constant improvement, as opposed to the Indian military which is one of the most powerful in the region after China's.
Both armie's infantry are equipped with British equipment/helmets and rifles.
So in answer to your question, yes we do a lot of arms deals with them.
My only thought is about the stupidity of talking peace, while we sell them both arms. I have no problems with arms sales per se because it will happen whether we do it or not and I'd rather the money came into our economy.
At least it means we get some influence over there. We are able to put pressure on them to calm down. We also have control over what we sell them.
Although selling weapons to both sides is a little dodgy IMO but what the hell...May as well make it an interesting war to watch on the BBC.
Sorry to bring up and old post, but try *this* area...it could get very scary. <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
More riots <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">