Crank phone call almost starts war

A W Smith

Philosopher
A W Smith
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
7,032
Location
Central New Jersey
Wow,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463027,00.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A man pretending to be India's foreign minister called Pakistan's president and talked in a "threatening" manner during the Mumbai terror attacks, prompting Pakistan to put its air force on high alert, a security official and a news report said Saturday.
Click to expand...

If someone did this to Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis. We probably wouldn't be here today.
 
lionking said:
Not quite on topic, but what would the US do if India nukes Pakistan?
Click to expand...

Um, what option do we have? Wait for the damn nuclear war to run its damn course. Other option is interfering, which would trigger global nuclear war. Not an acceptable scenario.

They don't really have the really dangerous weapons, just atom bombs, so the amount of damage they can do is limited to the Hiroshima scale. We'd end up cleaning it up, but it's nowhere near the threat of a true fusion bomb. We can't interfere because that would up the ante, to the fusion bomb level, which isn't a level our planet can play in, and support vertebrates.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Um, what option do we have? Wait for the damn nuclear war to run its damn course. Other option is interfering, which would trigger global nuclear war. Not an acceptable scenario.
Click to expand...
There certainly are other options. We're already "interfering"--pumping billions of dollars into the region. We should be able to have some say for our money, particularly in Pakistan.

At the very least, one option is to cut off the flow of money if either side takes military action against our wishes.

I agree our military presence (especially nuclear retaliation) would be a horrible mistake, but it doesn't take much imagination to think that there are other ways the U.S. could respond.

ETA: It'd be nice at least to get an accounting of how our money is being spent.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Wow,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463027,00.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A man pretending to be India's foreign minister called Pakistan's president and talked in a "threatening" manner during the Mumbai terror attacks, prompting Pakistan to put its air force on high alert, a security official and a news report said Saturday
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Since the Pakistani airforce was presumably on a defensive alert, this was not going to start a war. That would be India's call.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
There certainly are other options. We're already "interfering"--pumping billions of dollars into the region. We should be able to have some say for our money, particularly in Pakistan.

At the very least, one option is to cut off the flow of money if either side takes military action against our wishes.

I agree our military presence (especially nuclear retaliation) would be a horrible mistake, but it doesn't take much imagination to think that there are other ways the U.S. could respond.

ETA: It'd be nice at least to get an accounting of how our money is being spent.
Click to expand...

Any point before the bombs start falling? Sure. US has a lot of options. After that point? Not so many. Don't see how it's rational to suggest that we'd even have a clear line of communication to the government at that point. They'd be in bunkers or ashes after the first exchange.
 
GreyICE said:
Um, what option do we have? Wait for the damn nuclear war to run its damn course. Other option is interfering, which would trigger global nuclear war. Not an acceptable scenario.

They don't really have the really dangerous weapons, just atom bombs, so the amount of damage they can do is limited to the Hiroshima scale. We'd end up cleaning it up, but it's nowhere near the threat of a true fusion bomb. We can't interfere because that would up the ante, to the fusion bomb level, which isn't a level our planet can play in, and support vertebrates.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? India produced their hydrogen bomb ten years ago.
 
Cicero said:
Where have you been? India produced their hydrogen bomb ten years ago.
Click to expand...
Current estimate is, to the best of my knowledge, like 2-300 nuclear plutonium-based weapons, and zero hydrogen based ones. I know they have like a ton or two of reactor-grade plutonium, but enough tritium for a Hydrogen bomb?

I would be very surprised if I missed that. I don't think anyone in the world estimates they have that, I don't even think they're trying for it.

And if you're trying to compare a hydrogen bomb to a plutonium one, don't. Just don't. As well as to compare hand grenades to laser guided munitions.
 
GreyICE said:
Any point before the bombs start falling? Sure. US has a lot of options. After that point? Not so many. Don't see how it's rational to suggest that we'd even have a clear line of communication to the government at that point. They'd be in bunkers or ashes after the first exchange.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't follow. It sounded like you were saying what if one side nuked a city of the other side. You asked if the U.S. should interfere (meaning, I think, retaliate on behalf of the country that got nuked, possibly leading to a world-wide escalation). I agree with you that that would be a horrible idea, but I disagree that there's nothing else we could do.

The rest of the world, even in that hypothetical, would still exist. The attacking government would still exist. I think we could go through any number of international bodies to hold that country responsible for their actions. This could take MANY forms short of the nuclear option.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I guess I don't follow. It sounded like you were saying what if one side nuked a city of the other side. You asked if the U.S. should interfere (meaning, I think, retaliate on behalf of the country that got nuked, possibly leading to a world-wide escalation). I agree with you that that would be a horrible idea, but I disagree that there's nothing else we could do.

The rest of the world, even in that hypothetical, would still exist. The attacking government would still exist. I think we could go through any number of international bodies to hold that country responsible for their actions. This could take MANY forms short of the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

I don't me to sounds snide, but "Such as?"

Communications are right out. Even assuming the leaders are still alive, it's not like we could communicate with them. So any hypothetical action cannot be communication.

Now held responsible for their actions after the fact, sure. We could send in some troops... unless they had some bombs left... or our troops disliked radiation...

Actually, scratch that. No troops. We could set sanctions on two countries devastated by nuclear war, because that wouldn't kill millions more. We could threaten to bomb their cities, because conventional munitions are really threatening during a nuclear war, and because they'd obviously still have cities.

I guess we could promise to write really mean things about them in history books.
 
GreyICE said:
I don't me to sounds snide, but "Such as?"

Communications are right out. Even assuming the leaders are still alive, it's not like we could communicate with them. So any hypothetical action cannot be communication.
Click to expand...
How long do you think the EM pulse lasts? Yeah, I get that we probably couldn't communicate with the city or maybe even nearby cities while the bomb is exploding or for some minutes afterward.

I understood the hypothetical to be a limited nuclear exchange that left both nations in tact. I think it was "What would we do if India nukes Pakistan?"

I think we would certainly join with the international community in trying our best to get India not to continue. We would do all we can to get Pakistan NOT to retaliate, if their leadership is even in a position to do so. A first strike might very well have taken out the command structure that could "push the button".

Yes--diplomacy. We can meet with whatever leaders of Pakistan remain or emerge--obviously not in a recently nuked city!

Now held responsible for their actions after the fact, sure.
Click to expand...
Yes. What's wrong with that? How is that not an option to what we could do if India nuked Pakistan short of turning it into a global nuclear war?

I imagine we could also join with an international force in completely taking control of the aggressive country (India in the hypothetical) if they weren't immediately responsive to diplomacy. (Is there any power likely to defend India's actions in such a hypothetical?) At the very least, we could make sure they weren't allowed to have nukes again.

ETA: I forgot to mention that we could get behind a massive global effort to provide humanitarian aid for the survivors (on either side). A world-wide bone marrow donation program, food and safe water, etc.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there is a LOT we can do. Number one we can hold Pakistan accountable for the money we're pouring in there in an effort to stop terrorist activity that comes from within their borders. That's clearly not happening at this point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom