Nuclear Exchange in South Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

I am floored by the ramifications of this conflict, which appears to have come perilously close to a nuclear exchange, despite the marginal value over the contested region.

In particular, Pakistan's situation in this conflict was desperate--if the conflict escalated into a full scale war, Pakistan would have just six days of Oil. Furthermore, India would have a very good reason to send its forces beyond the "Line of Control"--this would enable them to cut off Pakistani positions without resorting to frontal attacks.

Nor does Pakistan's government seem to have been particularly sane in this situation. Not only did all of Pakistan's allies abroad, including China and the United States refuse to support it, but after launching contradictory statements over the nature of war and humiliating itself, the armed forces seized control of the country.

Given the insanity of Pakistan's government, the logical need for India to cross the Line of Control (which it did not do OTL, and suffered higher casualties as a result) and Pakistan's claim that it would use "any weapon" in its arsenal if the war widened, what happens if the Kargil War results in a tactical nuclear exchange?

India had prepared five missiles for such a situation; Pakistan would have needed to use bombers, but could probably have dropped some.

Does this lead to India and Pakistan being forced into a peace deal by the rest of the world? Does India simply decide that once the nukes start the fly it is time to finish off Pakistan? And is a nuclear war in South Asia likely to butterfly 9-11 or the election of George W. Bush?
 

boredatwork

Banned
Upwards of 500 million people dying from the immediate & after effects of the exchange will butterfly a whole hell of a lot.

Pakistan will probably collapse - which would give the taliban & their AQ buddies something new to focus on. India would have overnight become the greatest killer of muslims since the mongols, (of course, let's not kid ourselves, it isn't like India would've gotten off lightly either).

Short term, probably no 9-11, or at least, not aimed at the US.

Long term - the next mass attack, wherever it happens, probably involves a nuclear device from the ex-pakistani stockpile.

Bush/Gore - I don't see this as having any real impact - the US wasn't a primary player in the war or the run up to it, if anything, the failure to stop such slaughter might reflect poorly on the administration in office - which would worsen Gore's results, not improve them.

Impacts on US policy in the new admin (whomever sits in the oval office) - probably greater caution, greater focus on NBC proliferation. I would expect dramaticly less patience for Iraqi/Irani/NKorean nuclear efforts - as the Indo-Pak war will be taken as 'proof' that poor nations can't be trusted with nukes.

Once the inevitable nuclear terrorism happens, the reaction is likely to be several times more involved that the PATRIOT act and similar efforts.

All in all, a worse world to live in for almost everyone.
 
500 Million sounds like a bit much.

Pakistan would have 30-50 nuclear weapons; India might have 100 such weapons; in addition, Pakistan probably does not have a missile system to launch them into India, so India may be able to defang Pakistan with just a handful of weapons (IE, destroy Pakistan's Bomber Wings)

That said, can the world force the two sides to peace before a second nuclear exchange inflicts far greater losses?

As for Al-Qaeda, even if the death toll is more like 150 million (still ghastly), I can't imagine them picking on anyone except India.

EDIT: My thought is that we might see President McCain instead of President Bush if foreign policy is so critical.
 

boredatwork

Banned
500 Million sounds like a bit much.

Pakistan would have 30-50 nuclear weapons; India might have 100 such weapons; in addition, Pakistan probably does not have a missile system to launch them into India, so India may be able to defang Pakistan with just a handful of weapons (IE, destroy Pakistan's Bomber Wings)

That said, can the world force the two sides to peace before a second nuclear exchange inflicts far greater losses?

As for Al-Qaeda, even if the death toll is more like 150 million (still ghastly), I can't imagine them picking on anyone except India.


The 500million is the figure I saw quoted in the WSJ back at the time, supposedly based on a Rand study - figure was for the immediate impacts, plus starvation/anarchy from destruction of transport, power, water, medical, governmental services. But I agree, even 150 million is horrific.

I think the question would be whether India or Pakistan moves first.

India can defang pakistan (we think) which gives the Pakistanis strong incentive to launch first, if they think an exchange is imminent. So, I think Pakistan is likelier to move first, which means that they've a decent shot of using most of their arsenal - which isn't pretty.
 
So, we're pretty confident that if Pakistan drops a few nukes around Kargil, and India responds with the five missiles it has prepared, the world will not be able to contain the launch and both sides are going to get messed up.

The Linked info suggests that India and Pakistan hitting each other with 50 nukes would deal 20 million deaths; IDK what Radiation, Starvation or lack of infrastructure would do, but I'm still skeptical of the death toll being above 200 million.

Pakistan would probably be totally trashed (and it is possible that its nuclear weapons are simply gone), India would be badly hurt, although I recall that Eastern India is out of Range of Pakistan's forces.

That stuff on Nuclear Winter is interesting to read. Since the Kirgil War would be during the Summer of 1999, that would probably screw much of the world's food harvest for 1999. Is that how the death toll hits 500 million?

If true, this could well lead to a "Disarmament Crusade" led by the world to smash rogue nuclear states before they do this again. One positive is that China and Russia would probably give up on the idea of supporting nuclear programs in untrustworthy nations in exchange for their friendship. I'm sure that the whole tempo of the 21st Century will be radically different--US/NATO/Russia/China alliance in a crusade against rogue states...
 
Top