It would be very, very bad
India and Pakistan edge closer to war as nuclear-armed rivals trade strikes
India and Pakistan appeared to be edging closer to war on Saturday, as the two nuclear-armed nations both claimed they were provoked by the other before launching strikes against military assets in their rival countries.
Early Saturday, Pakistan’s armed forces said they targeted military sites inside India in response to an Indian missile attack at three air bases in Pakistan’s Punjab province. Hours later, India said its attack — which it claimed had hit four military bases in Pakistan — was in response to Pakistan attacking its civilian infrastructure.
Before Pakistan’s military action early Saturday, Pakistan’s chief military spokesman, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, said India had targeted Nur Khan air base in Rawalpindi, Murid air base in Chakwal and Rafiqui air base near Shorkot with air-to-surface missiles. Most of the missiles, he said in a later appearance, were intercepted and there were no casualties or damage.
India’s actions, he said, were “pushing the whole region toward dangerous war,” and vowed a firm response. (snip)
The Indian government dismissed Pakistan’s claims of destruction of Indian military capacities, including damage to the country’s critical infrastructure such as power systems, as “completely false.” “It is Pakistani actions that have constituted provocation and escalation,” India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a late morning news briefing.
Every day this seems to escalate more and more between two countries that despise each other. And have nuclear weapons
Foreign ministers of the Group of Seven nations on Friday issued a call for de-escalation and said the two countries should “engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome.”
Good sentiment, but, they hate each other
“There is no real historical precedent for what we’re seeing unfold,” said Asfandyar Mir, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a D.C.-based think tank. “We are now at a critical height on the escalation ladder.”
I’m rather surprised that no articles discuss what full scale war looks like between the nations.
(Metro UK) In 2019, a team of scientists investigated how a nuclear war between the two countries could start – and what the consequences could be for the rest of the world.
The direct effects of a nuclear exchange in India and Pakistan themselves would be apocalyptic.
Depending on the precise number of weapons used and their respective yields, anywhere between 50 million and 150 million people would be killed.
That is not to mention the cities obliterated, the millions more injured with no hope of immediate help, and the destruction of major infrastructure.
A slightly antiseptic way of saying this would be horrible
The huge amounts of smoke sent billowing into the stratosphere from those burning cities would block out sunlight, sending global temperatures plummeting by up to 10C.
Professor Brian Toon, a leading expert on climate and atmospheric science who co-authored the study, told Metro: ‘Even [nuclear war between] India and Pakistan can produce ice age temperatures with their arsenals.’
Which could cause serious problems with food production around the world, for one. And then all the nuclear fallout. Which could all result in one to two billion being killed around the world. Pakistan has 170 nuclear weapons and India has 164
The study estimates that 95 to 100% of the population would be left starving in Canada.
In Russia, the figure is 75 to 95%, while the proportion of people left starving in China was projected as 50% and 25% in the United States.
So, when JD Vance said this is not the problem of the U.S., which Karoline Leavitt contradicted in calling for de-escalation, he was wrong. This has world wide implications.
Whelp, I wrote this in the early morning for posting at 1030am, and, before it could even post
This has weirdly made many people, meaning Trump haters, upset.
A full-scale war between two nuclear powers would be very bad.
It’s hardly surprising that Mr Forty-$even and his minions claim responsibility for the cease fire!! LOL. WINNING?
In any event, the cease fire is a good thing.
Now, on wars where THEY have tried to intervene, do Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Gaza!!
Exactly who do you think should claim responsibility for the ceasefire? You?
Trump has been right about almost everything and you have been wrong about almost everything. Will you at least admit that he’s right to try and stop a war between India and Pakistan? Or would you rather wait unill a war breaks out and scream “trump failed lol”?
The ceasefire is already falling apart, with India and Pakistan each blaming the other.
His smugness from St Louis is, quite naturally, denigrating anything the Trump Administration tries. The US has tried to get a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, but if one is achieved, the distinguished Mr Dowd will claim that it too heavily favors Russia. If Donald Trump walked on water, Mr Dowd would combitch that he stomped on the heads of the fishies. If Mr Trump cured cancer, Mr Dowd would complain that he put a lot of doctors and nurses out of work.
Israel-Gaza? President Trump and all sensible people realize that the only reasonable outcome is the utter destruction of Hamas.
Those words don’t mean what this guy thinks they mean. India and Pakistan have long histories of shooting at each other and then returning to “non-shooting” seething hatred. Add to that the entirety of the cold war from Korea to Grenada. History has tons (megatons) of precedents for this. DC think tanks need to hire a better quality of thinker and not just be a home for Democrats when they are out of power.
The normal pattern for India and Pakistan is harsh words, some artillery, a border skirmish or two and both sides declare victory and announce in their own press that “We showed them who was boss”.
My guess is that, by “unprecedented” it was meant direct fighting between two nations which have nuclear weapons. That is considered something bad, and it is why I, at least, have said we should absolutely not be helping Ukraine, because Americans directly fighting Russia would be two nuclear-armed nations directly at war with each other.
“…amounts of smoke sent billowing into the stratosphere from those burning cities would block out sunlight, sending global temperatures plummeting by up to 10C.”
Damn!! Talk about silver linings. So nuclear war solves climate change and resets the Earth to a point where everyone will be forced to produce as much CO2 as the can.
So instead of spending trillions of dollars and impoverishing a billion people, we can just detonate one of our excess nukes in the Sahara desert every couple of years? Id sign up for that. This is the sort of out of the box thinking we need to solve climate change, if we are serious about it (hint: no one is serious about it, they just like stuffing their pockets while pretending).
Reagan allowed Pakistan to develop atomic weapons in exchange for Pakistan to allow weapons to be transshipped to the brave mujahadin fighting the Russians for us. Unfortunately the brave freedom fighters fighting the Ruskies were the most radical muslims. Thanks a lot Ronnie. Anyone else wish that we had allowed Russia to keep Afghanistan ?
How did President Reagan “allow” Pakistan to develop atomic weapons? Did Mr Reagan have the authority to order them to stop?
Why will Trump allow Iran to develop nukes? See Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA) of Jan 2016. Our very own brinksman, Trump, withdrew the U.S. in 2018. In January 2020, Iran announced that it had abandoned all JCPOA limits on its uranium enrichment program. It is now believed Iran has enriched to over 60% – the JCPOA had limited enrichment to under 4%. It’s likely the time for diplomacy is over.
But it seems unlikely given the historical hostilities with India that the U.S. could have stopped Pakistan by diplomacy alone.
Pakistan began the development of nuclear weapons in 1972 and conducted their first nuclear test in May 1998. That spans the terms of 6 U.S. presidents.
Why did Obama and Biden allow IRAN to build Nuclear weapons? The primary sponsor of terrorism around the world?
Huh DOWD?
The United States still uses Pakistan for funneling weapons to Ukraine NOW. YOU KNOW to support the BRAVE NAZIS in Ukraine to fight RUSSIA for the Democrats. How is it that the USA continues to use Pakistan which is now owned by China?
Why is it given that Pakistan owes their left nut to China for a 40 billion belt and road program that includes coal fired power plants, roads, trains and a big beautiful sea water PORT. IN fact the revenue from the port gives china 90 percent of the profit while Pakistan scurries around for the other 10 percent.
Why is it Johnny boy that, As China goes to Switzerland to talk trade with the USA, that a war breaks out between India and CHINA. BRICS…..Brazil, Russia, INDIA, CHINA and South Africa. As you can see INDIA is in bed with China.
In fact Apple just announced that 60 million Iphones are now being moved to INDIA away from CHINA…why is it that just two days after this announcement that a war breaks out between INDIA and Pakistan.
India is about as trustworthy as China. 90 percent of China’s shit will just be sent to Pakistan or India and then fed to the USA under much lower tariffs.
Why is it that OBAMA allowed CHINA to develop over 400 nuclear weapons, and Biden continued that while Trump fought them with tariffs during his 4 years.
If you want a boogey man. Look at the entire United States Congress from 1970 to 2025. They failed to do much of anything to keep the world stable as they all padded their bank accounts and banged about anything that moved.
Why did Farty-Five scotch the Iran Nuke deal? Huh, GLOOMY?
Rimjob starting his day commenting with another rhetorical question.
Brilliant. LOL.
But Lil Pissant’s mommy “loves” him as he strives for just a soupçon of relevance.
Lemme guess, we bribed ‘em with American taxpayer money