Reading about the
Kargil War and was thinking of the nuclear possibility.
There was a tiny thread on this last year, and a bigger one 6 years ago, that I didn't want to necro so I'll just post the final part of it here:
The question to ask is how exactly it would turn nuclear. It was an irrelevant conflict- both sides having a pissing contest for the sake of domestic prestige. The Pakistanis pushed past the Line of Control, got smacked down by the Indians and simmered down.
So, this is true. But reading about the war, the Pakistani positions were set in easily defensible spots that could only be attacked by full frontal assaults by the Indians. Flanking or surrounding the Pakistani positions would require crossing the Line of Control (LoC), meaning escalation of the battle.
Say the Indians grow weary of painful frontal assaults and flank the Pakistani's, crossing the LoC. The Pakistanis now have an escalation, invasion on their soil, and commit more, and the Indians do so in return, and so forth.
1999 Nuclear War would not be as bad as the
Hell's Door Opened scenario, given the smaller arsenals, particularly on the Pakistani side. Given Pakistan had about a dozen working nukes, and India maybe 50 tops, I do not see Pakistan really targeting anything other than military targets. That being said, nukes can fall off-target and plenty of military targets are in/near cities.
Let us say the exchange happens early July 2000. Minor exchange, Pakistan is worse off than India but still isn't bombed into a parking lot. Painful for India but not devastating.
My main question is what effects it has on international politics?
Does it change the 2000 US elections at all? Is Putin still elected? Does Blair face greater opposition for this happening on his watch?