Tensions escalate between Pakistan and India Crisis
 |
| The global cost of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan |
Summary:
Last week, tensions escalated between India and Pakistan. This began when both countries shot each other's fighter jets down. There has always been a history of conflict between the countries, especially after 1947 when Pakistan split off from India. India and Pakistan fought three conventional wars varying in 1947,1965 and 1971 before getting nuclear weapons. Many wars followed, most recently in 1999 along the Kashmir mountainous region. The conflict has encouraged both countries to strengthen their military; however, India currently holds a higher place in terms of military material, personal and money. Due to India being more economically stable, they are considering developing forces to attack Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
 |
| India and Pakistan continue to increase nuclear weapons. |
Although India has more advanced material, Pakistan has a network of canals still in place from WWI, which make it harder for Indian formations to enter Pakistan.
 |
| Indian politician and advocate, Arun Jaitley tweets about the economic tensions. |
For the first time since 1971, India bombed mainland Pakistan. This occurred due to a Pakistan terrorist group supporting a suicide bombing that killed about 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers in the Kashmir Territory. Both countries have strong nuclear power. Pakistan wants Indian to realize a nuclear threat is there and that they can always use terrorist groups against, and both discourage India to retaliate.
Reaction:
Both opposing sides are using nuclear weapons as a threat. In the long run, it can result in fighting and conflict. Both sides are using violent tactics, therefore can kill millions. People are getting injured and killed everyday. Fighting violence with violence won't solve any of the two countries future problems.
Connections:
This topic connects to our current unit about the Cold War. Both sides are aiming to use nuclear threats to intimidate the opposing side, similarly to how the USSR and the US used nuclear threat in the Cold War. Even though neither side used their nuclear weapons, both sides feared nuclear war which discouraged extreme actions. While it's true that the fear of nuclear escalation may reduce fighting, nuclear weapons would result in severe danger. This makes neither side want to take any drastic measures in fear of nuclear attack on their country.
Questions:
1. What are the potential consequences of India bombing mainland Pakistan?
2. How might this conflict be affecting surrounding countries?
3. What are some ways this conflict can be resolved?
Additional Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/01/india-pakistan-conflict-timeline.html 
There would be threats to the world if India chose to use nuclear weapons against Pakistan. First, many countries pledge, or claim to have pledged that they will only use nuclear weapons to defend their nation if first attacked by another nation. Once India uses that first nuclear weapon, other countries will become involved and it could easily get out of control. With nations becoming involved through alliances and protecting their allies, this would certainly quickly turn into a downward spiral lose-lose situation for the world. As always, when countries are forced to become involved with other peoples' wars due to their alliances, more and more countries get pulled in to conflict and it can escalate rapidly. I think a potential solution could be to talk out borders that each side would be satisfied with, and if necessary, demilitarize those borders as to decrease threats of an attack. The leaders should meet together, and if necessary have a third party mediate it, and work toward a resolution, similar to how leaders have attempted to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. This time, we can only hope that they will reach peace.
ReplyDeletesources: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-hanson-nuclear-missle-korea-1102-story.html
Deletehttps://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/no-first-use-and-nuclear-weapons
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/india-pakistan-war
In the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the partition plan stated that Kashmir’s population (of mostly Muslims) are free to leave to assent to either Pakistan or India. However, ruler Hari Singh decided against this, causing this border dispute. Both countries have nuclear powers, but according to https://qz.com/india/1567129/why-india-pakistan-must-avoid-nuclear-war-at-all-costs/ , having nuclear weapons "deters countries from using them in warfare." However, India has a “No First Use” doctrine, where they will only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. This means that the increasing tensions between Pakistan and India may remain at limbo regarding nuclear weapons, unless Pakistan attacks with nuclear weapons first, considering they don’t have their own doctrine declaring the potential use of nuclear weapons. If the occasion arises where Pakistan attacks using nuclear weapons, India would attack back, causing a terrifyingly dangerous situation for the world, considering no nuclear weapons have not been used for attacking other nations since World War II. Other countries also have nuclear weapons, so the launch of Pakistan and India’s could easily trigger nuclear war between conflicting nations around the world, which is something horrifying for the human race.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my peers on how the usage of nuclear weapons would spark a chain reaction of countries bombing each other because many countries are in alliances. Our world would be instantly turned into apocalypse. As seen in previous wars/World Wars, many countries were dragged in, even though they were not directly involved in such conflict. As of right now, there has not been any attempts to solve this problem because of the intense hatred for each other. Similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, both sides refuse acknowledge each other’s perspective. They struggle to reconcile modern borders with ancient identities. They both have reconciled little in the nearly seven decades since independence from the British (https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/04/why-india-and-pakistan-hate-each-other/). Today, India and Pakistan have a nuclear arms race and disputes over territory, water, and trade. The potential solution is for both sides to understand each other’s perspectives and find a common ground. Then, they would both decide on the boundaries and perhaps demilitarize that region. Just like how the US mediated the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a third party can intervene and help sort out a resolution.
ReplyDeleteAlong with what others have said, I too believe that this feud could affect other surrounding countries. This is because if they decide to start bombing each other more regularly, countries that support Pakistan and India, (separately), would most likely have to begin supplying them resources and aide. This would lead to more tension between the powers. It would also lead to economic downfall in not only India and Pakistan, but the supporting countries as well. While this is very obvious, I believe the best way to avoid all of this is for the leaders of Pakistan and India to come together, (while being overseen by a non-biast council), and stay at this meeting until they've come up with a compromise that will satisfy both sides.
ReplyDeleteWhile both countries possess nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war would affect both sides. Both will experience mutually assured destruction, and thus there is an incentive to make peace. Pakistan has already made a gesture of peace by returning the pilot safely, while also making a fool of India at the same time. India would not be wise to respond poorly to these actions. Instead, India should take advantage of the situation to initiate peace talks, and decrease future tensions between Pakistan and India. Doing so will ensure the future prosperity of both countries, rather than insinuating more violence by taking action against Pakistan. However, these talks need to be initiated by India, as the more powerful country. Making peace to one's apparent enemy is always the greatest display of power, and could turn this political mess in India's favor.
ReplyDeleteIndia bombing Pakistan would not only hurt Pakistan but it would undoubtedly feed into a much bigger conflict. A nuclear war would most likely be started and this would result in the destruction of many parts of both countries and would cause harm to countless numbers of civilians on both sides. This conflict could also spiral out of control and drag other countries into this war, which would only result in more death and chaos. Not a single country would gain anything positive from any conflict like this and instead would just increase negative effects on a drastic scale. This conflict could definitely spill into neighboring countries and bring conflict to countries with no intention of fighting but could be forced to become involved. This would play into even more chaos in the area and could have a lasting effect for many years after the conflict has been resolved and could definitely cause feelings between people in the area to become a lot more negative and hateful.
ReplyDeleteIf India were to pursuit in the bombing of mainland Pakistan, this can only cause a ripple affect of negative outcomes, for not only both countries but surrounding allies as well. As tensions only seem to arise between the two nations, it is most probable that other parties will need to be involved in order to come to a resolution. Because attacking Pakistan's nuclear arms, can truly be the start of an all out nuclear war. Further leading to the assist of aid and support of fire arms by other allies, forcing even more dispute between different countries.
ReplyDeleteIndia’s bombing of Pakistan will not only hurt Pakistan, but will in no doubt lead to greater conflict. The nuclear war is most likely to begin, which will lead to the destruction of many parts of the two countries and will cause harm to countless civilians on both sides. The conflict may also be out of control and dragging other countries into the war, which will only lead to more death and chaos. No country will get any positive things from any conflict like this, but only increase its negative impact on a fierce scale. Similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the two sides refused and/or could not recognize each other’s views. They strive to harmonize modern borders with ancient identity.
ReplyDeleteIf India were to bomb Pakistan, the consequences would be much larger than the dropping of one bomb. With relations between the two countries already strained, any small event could start yet another war. More conflict will not benefit either side, as reiterated by national security adviser John Bolton on Twitter, "Spoke with Pakistani FM [Shah Mehmood] Qureshi to encourage meaningful steps against JeM [Jaish-e-Mohammed] and other terrorist groups operating from Pakistan... The FM assured me that Pakistan would deal firmly with all terrorists and will continue steps to deescalate tensions with India." (thehill.com) These tweets support the fact that Pakistan clearly does not want conflict to escalate, and are attempting to stop it in every way possible. Thus if India were to bomb Pakistan, these steps towards peace would most definitely change and turn much more defensive. With all facts compiled, it is in both countries best interest to work on making peace rather than attempting to dominate with weapons, such as bombs.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Indian Law, India will not use nuclear weapons first, unless attacked by another country or to defend themselves. If Pakistan does not implement policy to control terrorists groups, whether those are supported by the government or not, India might start to make military advancements. Especially with the US leaning towards the side of India, Pakistan will face a tough challenge against two major world powers. Even though Mike Pompeo has called on both countries to reduce tension, the president has expressed interest in India, as a way to combat China’s rising influence in India. This support gives India a obvious advantage, which may force Pakistan into stopping the attacks. If the countries do start fighting, daily life of the people who live there will be even more disturbed, which will create nationalistic views for their own respective countries,which could result in more conflict. Also, the alliances that these countries have will be in use, which means that many other countries will also join the conflict. If this escalates quickly, because this is a weak spot, other countries might try to take advantage and claim a small part of the land as well. Almost all surrounding countries, from the US to China, are calling for peace. But ultimately, similarly to the situation in Israel/Palestine, the two main countries involved, India and Pakistan, will have to make a deal together. Muslims do have a majority in this area, but Kashmir and Jammu have officialy been part of India since 1947, since the ruler at that time chose India.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/world/asia/india-pakistan-crisis.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/10537286
A resolution to this conflict would to concesion of kashmir as it is the place of dispute. Both sides want Kashmir as pakistan wants it due to its high muslim population and India wants it due because its mountains act as a barrier from pakistan. Most of the conflict between these two countries is based off this area. A way this conflict could be resolved could be India's concession of Kashmir with Pakistan giving them a form of assurance that they would give up violent acts by turning over terrorist to India to be punished and properly giving up state sponsored terrorism.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/05/why-pakistan-supports-terrorist-groups-and-why-the-us-finds-it-so-hard-to-induce-change/
Like many of my classmates, I believe that India bombing Pakistan would only create an even longer conflict. The current strained relationship between the countries would only get worse. Also, this situation presents mutually assured destruction between the two countries because both of them have nuclear weapons. If they were to bomb each other, it could end up affecting areas all over the world. Other areas would have to provide aide if a nuclear war broke out and this would cause them to get involved with the situation. According to BBC, India and Pakistan disagree on the Kashmir land. They need to figure out who should own this land or how they should split it before any peace is reached.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.bbc.com/news/10537286
Entering the territory of bombing is a very risky move for either country, as it will achieve nothing but escalation of both sides. In my opinion, mediation by a third party may soon be necessary, but in order to avoid entangling many countries into a conflict involving nuclear weapons, a third party must be as concise in their motives and alliances as possible. A lack of clear motives has potential to result in a situation similar to the US's reduced presence in the Israeli Palestinian War of 1973 due to the oil embargo. When ulterior motives are revealed, relations between nations get very messy, and complicating a conflict involving nuclear arms is a bad move.
ReplyDeleteI think if India bombed Pakistan it will only make matters worse. The tension between the two countries are already very bad, and if India were to bomb Pakistan it will be harder for both sides to be able to agree and have peace with one another. Bombing Pakistan is not worth the lives that will be lost or the consequences that will happen afterwards. Both countries possess nuclear weapon, and if they were to use them on each other not only will it affect them, but it will affect other countries around the world as well. If both countries want to end this, they need to meet together and agree on how they can separate/share the boarders evenly. I believe that the countries need to agree on something fast before war is started.
ReplyDeleteAs Arnav mentioned above, US has been leaning to India's side in the conflict recently. Naturally China may lean towards Pakistan because of tensions between them and the US right now. If both sides continue with the acts of violence against each other, the two countries may physically get involved causing a potential world war. This conflict reminds me a lot of the arab-israeli conflict, the fight over land. I think both countries need to split the land, the last time one of the countries got all the land (1947) it didn't end well and resulted in more violence. Fighting over the land hasn't been working either and just been resulting in deaths of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteIf India and Pakistan started bombing each other it would not solve anything and it will only make more problems for the country with the amount of damaged caused by the opposing sides. This conflict would affect the surrounding countries because they could be asked to join which could lead to alliances made which was one of the big problems in world wars. If more countries were involved it would become a domino affect for the war to grow much larger. The only way for this conflict to be resolved is if there are compromises made for both sides. Both sides need to give in an equal amount of offering so there aren't arguments in the future. They could use their citizens which could be potentially bombed as incentive to not go to war.
ReplyDeleteNuclear was is obviously just utter destruction. Of course it’d affect both countries in many ways. It’d also affect the surrounding coutries. If there were nuclear war, each country’s alliances would provide support which would only harm that country’s economy. The war would also create economic downfall for both India and Pakistan as well. This is because nuclear war would increase the number of casualties seeing that it’s nuclear war as opposed to war with standardized weaponry. To avoid this, I feel that the political leaders of each country should at least agree to meet and discuss any solutions that could be persued to end this on-going feud. I understand that that is not as easy as it sounds however, talking things out is generally the best way to keep things at bay even if that means settling with no violence and not necessarily peace.
ReplyDeleteIndia bombing Pakistan will have lasting and destroying effects on India and Pakistani relations. This action would most likely start a war or even larger conflict of some sort, which is most likely a war. The outcome of which would be extremely destructive. Because both countries have nuclear weapons, the likely hood of other countries getting involved is very high. Allies for Pakistan and India will most likely be called upon if this dispute continues, because of the potential for this to be a nuclear war. Unlike the U.S. and Russia India and Pakistan don't have an agreement to not use nuclear weapons. There are 2 ways this conflict could be resolved, war, or agreements. The more destructive of the 2 being war, is currently quite likely, because of each countries' strong nationalistic ideals. Agreements are also plausible if other countries step in before war breaks out.
ReplyDelete-Rumi Loghmani
India bombing Pakistan could have a detrimental impact on the rest of world. Using atomic weapons could kick-start a nuclear war. Countries would create alliances and end up expanding the crisis going on between Pakistan and India currently. A nuclear war would not solve anything, but rather further damage the already strained relations going on in the Middle East. The use of nuclear weapons could lead to mutually assured destruction (as demonstrated in the Cold War) as well as cause a stalemate, resulting in thousands of deaths in the process. Similar to the Israel-Palestine crisis, the only way to solve this dispute is through compromise. Both countries want the same thing, but starting a war in an attempt to gain Kashmir, as well as to “prove their point” of how much they want it, would only cause death, tension, and a drawn out disagreement with no end in sight.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/10537286
India bombing the Pakistan homeland will have a negative effect and will cause Pakistan to retaliate. This will start an inevitable back and forth conflict between the countries that will escalate into war. With this conflict between India and Pakistan it will likely turn into a war. A war will cause the Countries allied with India and countries allied with Pakistan to join the fighting. Not only that, but as we have seen throughout history like in WW1 with Belgium being invaded by Germany even though it was neutral. The war could also cause a refugee problem as people will be driven out of their homes and look at neighboring countries as a safe haven for the time being. Some ways this could resolve is if Pakistan and India both apologize to each other for the jet incident, and they set up better communications with each other so that stuff like this won't happen again.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/where-the-latest-india-pakistan-conflict-may-lead-quicktake/
There are many potential consequences of the bombing on Pakistan. Pakistan is a country with many people, innocent people, that will end up getting hurt, vice versa with India. If India bombs Pakistan back, there will be continued bombings from either side. The back and forth bombings would not be worth the loss of many lives over this conflict. In my opinion the only way to help resolve this conflict is for India and Pakistan to discuss. Both countries need to come to a compromise about the land and how they equally need to divide it. Dropping and using nuclear weapons on each country is not a way to resolve this situation and will not end well.
ReplyDeleteKayla Li:
ReplyDeleteI believe that India bombing Pakistan will only result in deterimental circumstances. There have always been tensions between India and Pakistan largely due to religions differences. Many Indians folllow either Hinduism (South) or Sikhism (North) Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.culturalindia.net/amp/indian-religions/ and a Pakistan separated from India because of those differences in 1947 in what was known as the Partition Act. Like the article mentions, India and Pakistan have have a history of conflict but I believe involving nuclear warfare will inflict significant damage on a global scale. I believe these issues should be addressed through conversations and legislation instead of bombs and war.
I believe that India bombing Pakistan will only result in deterimental circumstances. There have always been tensions between India and Pakistan largely due to religions differences. Many Indians folllow either Hinduism (South) or Sikhism (North) Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.culturalindia.net/amp/indian-religions/ and a Pakistan separated from India because of those differences in 1947 in what was known as the Partition Act. Like the article mentions, India and Pakistan have have a history of conflict but I believe involving nuclear warfare will inflict significant damage on a global scale. I believe that the conflicts should be addressed through conversations rather than artillary. Empathy and is what drives peace and without conversations, that is not possible.
I believe that if India were to bomb mainland Pakistan, Pakistan would fight back with even more nuclear weapons. This whole situation would take away many many innocent civilian lives. This conflict could potentially drag in other countries, and have them fight due to their alliances and nationalism. According to cnn.com (https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/asia/kashmir-explainer/index.html), the reason they are fighting is due to a piece of land called Kashmir. They have had multiple wars based on this piece of land, how it is supposedly independent and free to choose to connect to either Pakistan or India, and how both sides refuse to remove their weapons from the land in fear that the other side takes it. I think in order to resolve a lot of problems between India and pakistan (blame and terrorism), they should split Kashmir and split the land equally amoung the two countries.
ReplyDelete