Why India can not afford a nuclear war with Pakistan is what humanity should not wish for. Nuclear Weapons are supposed to be lethal. The death toll from a nuclear war will be too ghastly to contemplate. There have been a hand full of martyrs in history whose deaths are remembered and celebrated, the masses go into mass graves as well.
Muhammad Omar Nasir, Editor-in-Chief, writes from Stockholm, Sweden:
Social media has been extremely entertaining (and disappointing) for the past few weeks. Blinded by nationalist pride, justice warriors have been active with such ferocity that the absurdity of it all ended up reaching new heights. There was an online twitter poll to gauge the extent of public support for a nuclear offensive. Across the border, you’d have ended up with people’s willingness to sacrifice millions, just so they could retaliate with their prized nuclear warheads. Typical narrative, same institutionalized brainwashing, separated by a virtual boundary. The premise is preposterous and flawed to the core.
At times of war, a voice against war is never appreciated by the state. They need the people to be united to form a stronger narrative. Thus, opinion is manipulated or changed via Social Media propaganda (Facebook statuses, Tweets, Ads, News Headlines). The only thing we need to keep in mind is the fact that there is no such thing as bad publicity. One of the ways to counter such narratives is to not share anything related to war (except for the hard stated facts in this article). Narratives are fueled by the banter of the masses. Ignoring them might seem weird but it might be one of the best tactics out there.
And we speak so because any person ready/willing/proactive about war has not truly witnessed/experienced war (read pain). There is no glory in war unless you were in a consultation/off-field role during it. You should be prepared but never wish for it. As Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif threatens to “annihilate” India with nuclear bombs in return.
The nuclear programs are popular within each country and are protected by strong institutional and domestic political constituencies. In view of these factors, international pressure over a period of decades has had little direct impact on the attitudes of India and Pakistan concerning nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is widely regarded as designed to dissuade India from taking military action against Pakistan.
Remembering from past: The 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff was a military standoff between India and Pakistan that resulted in the massing of troops on either side of the border and along the Line of Control (LoC) in the region of Kashmir. This was the second major military standoff between India and Pakistan following the successful detonation of Nuclear Weapons by both countries in 1998 and the most recent declared standoff between the nuclear rivals.
The current military buildup is initiated by India responding to a so-called terrorist attack URI on 18 September 2016 (during which at a rear administrative base camp with tents caught fire, 17 army personnel were killed.) India claimed that the attacks were carried out by four Pakistan-based terror (inauzubillah) groups fighting Indian administered Kashmir, the Jammat ud Dawa (formerly known as Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Jaish-e-Mohammad, both of whom India has said are backed by Pakistan’s ISI a charge that Pakistan denied.
Once again, the threat of nuclear war hangs over the Indian sub-continent as India and Pakistan teeter on the brink of another war following a series of military escalations that might worsen if Pakistan decides to respond today to its rivals “surgical strikes” yesterday. Islamabad’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” have led some observers really know that its weapons are for not-first use and only to reflect concern about an increased risk of nonstrategic balance in favor of India since the civil-nuclear deal with US.
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal probably consists of approximately 110-130 nuclear warheads, although it could have more. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and deploying additional nuclear weapons and new types of delivery vehicles. Pakistan has both aircraft and land-based missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Short range ballistic missiles and attack aircraft are the two methods favored for launching these deadly weapons.
Dr. Mubarakmand is reported to have said:
Pakistan has over 15 types of nuclear weapons, from large weapons that can be carried on fighter jets to small ones that can be loaded onto ballistic missiles, and even smaller warheads for cruise missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.
The nuclear rhetoric on both sides is much too heated, since, A Bharatiya Janata Party MP calls for a nuclear attack on Pakistan. As of August, India is estimated to have from 100 to 120 nuclear warheads. Respective decisions to pursue nuclear weapons stem largely from their troubled bilateral relationship, assessments of threats posed by each other (and China in India’s case), perceptions of enhanced national power or status derived from possession of such weapons, and domestic politics.
Borders do define cultural split; however, shared heritage like nature and history can never be ignored. People like to affiliate to similarities more than they seek differences. If you are religious pray for better times and act accordingly. If you are not, just act in a manner which helps avoid such situations until there is no other alternative.
Related: Pakistan Air Force bewares Enemy!
Nuclear Weapons are not shurli patakhay:
- The detonation of 100 nuclear warheads of the same yield that destroyed the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.
- Around 21 million persons in both countries will die within a week in nuclear attacks.
- That death toll is roughly the population of New Delhi and a fifth of Pakistan’s current population.
- After a year, the Earth’s average surface temperature could drop by 1.1 Kelvin (2 degrees Fahrenheit).
- Five years after the Indo-Pak nuclear war, the Earth will be three degrees colder on average than it was before.
- In this same time period, the Earth will have nine percent less rain than usual.
- After 26 years, the Earth will receive 4.5 percent less rain than before the war.
- In the five years after the war, the ozone will become 20 to 25 percent thinner on average.
Warning India: There has been acquisitions of sophisticated weaponry by our neighbour India which always disturbed the conventional balance between our two countries and hence, India needs to lower the nuclear threshold. Or else, two billion people will starve in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange involving 100 nuclear weapons. Pakistani will unfortunately have to respond and mind it, India is the only Hindu nation on Earth.
Do not miss out to read about the many similarities between these two nations and striking resemblance in many parts of Indo-Pak cultures: Aman ki Aasha
Editorial remarks:
It’s understandable, the leadership would love to appease rightist vote banks by fueling cross-border hatred, but that doesn’t stop it from being hilarious (and sad). Misplaced pride and massively inflated ego has made the populace oblivious to the fact that millions would perish in the fallout of a nuclear disaster. Let’s not invest in health care, education and infrastructure because, well, the established narrative is too critical to ignore. It’s basic logic, if a whole continent can learn to coexist and develop a functional free market after enduring two world wars, so can two neighboring countries that have sprung from the same civilization.
[…] (e) unlike India, Pakistan does not need nuclear weapons; […]