DBWI-No Indo-Pakistani Nuclear War

OOC:Actually, India did have an aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat, and its carrier aircraft are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Of course, I doubt they actually have any.

The Viraat is a very old carrier (laid up during the Second World War) that should have been retired 40 years ago. Aside from that, its about the range of the planes on the ship; in this case the Sea harriers have to be 540nm away from the Chinese coast to be within combat range. Now that would mean India would send its lone carrier across the Indian Ocean pass the Malacca Strait, across the South China sea without refueling or restocking in what amounts to a suicide mission, they could theoretically do it, but it would make no logical sense.
 
Well, America has suffered a lot economically. The "insourcing" policies of the Paul and Sanders administrations have helped in the recovery, though America is still below the boom times of the 1990's. (At one time, all the non-government offices in the New York World Trade Center were vacant.) There's a lot of pressure from the New America Party and candidates like Graham and Power to send more forces abroad (to say nothing of the God's Own Party people who want us to back Israel against the "Mohammedan hordes"), but the Socialists and Libertarians (who are fighting it out in Congress and the WH) agree on a few things- one of which is no more permanent bases overseas.
 
The Indian subcontinent wouldn't be the world's largest leper colony, for starters. Seriously, post-war India and Pakistan are a greater humanitarian disaster than the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Great Purge and the Great Leap Forward combined. Back then, India was expected to eventually surpass China with China's looming demographic issues.

The Tamil Republic is actually a pretty nice place to live, having been spared the worst of the exchange. Of course, the repeated calls by fringe nationalists to invade and annex Tamil-majority lands in Sri Lanka has caused a bit of concern.
 
london was pretty damaged, but it could have been much, much worse. AQ didn't have the kind of know how needed to maintain their stolen bombs, or to really set them off correctly. What you ended up with was a dirty bomb that took out a forth of the city and a nasty clean up that will take decades, this is a step up from what could have happened.

I mean big ben is still standing, in ten years it should be safe to visit again.
 
Well, America has suffered a lot economically. The "insourcing" policies of the Paul and Sanders administrations have helped in the recovery, though America is still below the boom times of the 1990's. (At one time, all the non-government offices in the New York World Trade Center were vacant.) There's a lot of pressure from the New America Party and candidates like Graham and Power to send more forces abroad (to say nothing of the God's Own Party people who want us to back Israel against the "Mohammedan hordes"), but the Socialists and Libertarians (who are fighting it out in Congress and the WH) agree on a few things- one of which is no more permanent bases overseas.

IC: What's this about Paul? Bernie Sanders(RIP) was President in '08, not Ron Paul.....

OOC: Sorry, but, although this is a good post, I honestly can't see Ron Paul winning, even in this scenario: for one thing, he's got too much questionable baggage(like those letters he kept trying to deny existed!), as does his son Rand. Bernie Sanders might be do-able, but as a Democrat.

Also, don't forget the Democrats: they still have just under half the seats in the House, and 47 seats in the Senate(counting Puerto Rico, that goes up to 49!). At least the GOP these days, or what's left of them, are rather more moderate than they were in '01.....

OOC: I figured that Sanders/Warren would run in '08 on a reformist ticket, after the failures of Bush/Cheney to fix the economy. Sanders died of a stroke in late 2013, and former V.P. Elizabeth Warren is the sitting President as of 2015/16. I do think that the GOP might also be able to survive if they jettison the Fundies and the hardline pro-corporate types.
 
london was pretty damaged, but it could have been much, much worse. AQ didn't have the kind of know how needed to maintain their stolen bombs, or to really set them off correctly. What you ended up with was a dirty bomb that took out a forth of the city and a nasty clean up that will take decades, this is a step up from what could have happened.

I mean big ben is still standing, in ten years it should be safe to visit again.

The London nuke was traced back to a certain Muslim warlord by the name of Osama Bin Laden whose group operated mostly on the former border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not that borders in the Indian sub continent actually mattered after the nuclear exchange that ended the war. Both India and Pakistan fell apart with the destruction of most of their governments in New Dehli and Islamabad respectively. What was left of the militaries (the opposing armies and air forces were hit hard with nuclear wepons - Pakistan's navy was pretty much wiped out in the Battle of Karachi during the first week of the war) disbanded themselves after the exchange with some of the surviving officers becoming some of the more "effective" warlords. Various warlords have managed to carve out fair sized successor states, for example Bangalore, Punjab and the Sikh Republic. Elsewhere in the former India and Pakistan the situation remains dire with genocidal massacres, famine and disease not to mention the radioactive contamination being particular problems ccording to the 2014 Blair Report. The conflict between Hindus. Muslims and Sikhs are particularly savage.
 
IC: What's this about Paul? Bernie Sanders(RIP) was President in '08, not Ron Paul.....

OOC: Sorry, but, although this is a good post, I honestly can't see Ron Paul winning, even in this scenario: for one thing, he's got too much questionable baggage(like those letters he kept trying to deny existed!), as does his son Rand. Bernie Sanders might be do-able, but as a Democrat.

Also, don't forget the Democrats: they still have just under half the seats in the House, and 47 seats in the Senate(counting Puerto Rico, that goes up to 49!). At least the GOP these days, or what's left of them, are rather more moderate than they were in '01.....

OOC: I figured that Sanders/Warren would run in '08 on a reformist ticket, after the failures of Bush/Cheney to fix the economy. Sanders died of a stroke in late 2013, and former V.P. Elizabeth Warren is the sitting President as of 2015/16. I do think that the GOP might also be able to survive if they jettison the Fundies and the hardline pro-corporate types.

OOC: He could be referring to Rand Paul.
 
OOC: He could be referring to Rand Paul.

OOC: Yes, I took that into account as well-not convinced that Rand would win, either; he's still a Republican, and, as we've already established, the GOP basically imploded by the time the Bush era ended, and the Libertarians are basically the GOP lite on nearly every economic factor possible, so they wouldn't have a chance in hell in '08, either thanks to this, and other factors(including TTL developments), which is why I suggested Bernie Sanders, as he'd represent a vital change in direction.

So yeah, just to clarify, I did think that post through before submitting it.
 
Top