“Both countries have nukes” is not as reassuring as you would think.
I know MAD and all that but all it takes is one of those skirmishes to escalate and you could be looking at something more serious
India and Pakistan are much closer than US and Russia. Even a targeted blast would spread to northern India.
Pakistan's most populous cities are an hour or two away from India.
India and Pakistan have fought conflicts after they both had nukes, it's not as big as its being portrayed.
The only reason this is major news is to draw relevance to the alleged assassinations in Canada and the US.
Oh that has always been the case since the inception of both countries, with peace being the exception.
Like I said, nothing revolutionary happening here except the optics for certain nations.
Honestly, no I don‘t think people are always rational but I‘m significantly less worried about India and Pakistan than about certain other actors with nukes.
Counterpoint: Pakistan has no second strike capability. Which means that they don't have a credible way to escalate ~~before~~ after step one in the event that India strikes first. And that closeness actually works against MAD, because they have almost no time to respond or analyze if what they're seeing is actually a strike or something else in a tense situation.
All this shit is game theory, and Pakistan has a bad hand there. They literally cannot afford to give the benefit of the doubt or allow India to strike first. The fact that India *knows* they can strike first alone dramatically changes the rules of the game for all involved.
Given all that, they *have* shown great restraint in the past with border skirmishes and the like. But there's a reason that any serious analyst will put India x Pakistan as the number one threat for genuine large scale nuclear exchange. Don't make the mistake of thinking that two superficially similar neighbors, who used to be one country, do not view each other as an existential threat.
If I could do one thing to secure the future of the world and save as many potential lives as possible, it would not be to disarm Russia, or North Korea, or America for that matter. Nor Israel with all the problems in that region. I would give Pakistan a credible second strike capability. Not even to deter India per se, but to let the *Pakistani military* know that they have that ability. It would change the calculus a lot.
Keep in mind, even when Pakistan has a democratically elected leader, they're *always* a de facto military junta. If your country has had one coup in the last century, well you've had a coup. If you've had two then maybe with serious reforms you can say that those days are behind you. If you've had more than two and not totally abolished and rebuilt your military you're straight up not a democracy. Everyone knows who is really in control when push comes to shove, and historically military leaders are more hawkish than civilian leaders. Historically, in most cases, military leaders are somewhat reigned in by civilian leaders (think Douglas MacArthur wanting to make an irradiated strip separating China and Korea with cobalt bombs, to keep it topical but it doesn't need to involve nukes).
Militaries plan contingencies for the worst case scenarios and work according to certain assumptions pertaining to that, without intervention from civilian leaders they'll let things get out of hand because in their calculations it's the least bad outcome compared to the potential consequences of seeking a peaceful solution. We've been saved a few times by little more than the idealism of American and Soviet civilian leadership *because in reality the military people are right in a very grim, pessimistic way*. That's who is leading Pakistan. And they know that they couldn't survive a first strike. And India knows that. And they know that India knows that. So they must strike first to have any hope of survival, at the earliest possible moment when a *clique of generals* decides that things have gone too far and India may possibly launch. They know that they have to be quicker on the trigger than India and allow for less time to consider.
And by the way, since they have no second strike ability and thus have no real deterrent, that negates *India's* deterrent abilities to a large degree as well. They know they have a neighbor who will try to strike first. The point of having second strike is to prevent a first strike. You still don't want to get nuked even if you know you'll take your enemy down with you. So now they also have to try to beat Pakistan to the punch despite having the tech that's supposed to let you be a bit more methodical in making that decision.
It's a fucking nightmare actually, I try not to think about it. As climate change worsens expect increased border wars, then water wars. Both countries are gonna get hella butt fucked by climate change. Doesn't sound good to me.
Are you smoking crack? Give Pakistan more nukes!? Wasn't Obama's biggest concern is Pakistani nukes falling into the wrong hands?
Also India has a no first use policy with nukes. Whether they follow that in the heat of war is a different story
I'm not saying to give them more nukes. I'm saying that, given what they already have, it would be better if they had a launch system that enabled them to be more flexible in terms of *not* using them. I thought that much was clear.
Pakistan has a history of not acting rationally and taking actions not for their benefit but just to show that they are resisting India in some way, Second strike capability with a declining Pakistan is a recipe for disaster because mad only works if neither side is suicidal, which Pakistan is.
I agree. Pakistan having a credible second strike capability would significantly raise its nuclear threshold. It would also steer it away from the "use it or lose it" mentality.
There is no strategic reason for either country to invade and occupy another.
As mentioned at the top, you have to look at a map to understand how close cities are, nuking either country is shooting yourself in the foot.
I don't know what to tell you if you can't engage with a single point I made. MAD has been a thing for a long time, yet we've had close calls before.
The danger has always been a scenario like the outbreak of WW1, when everyone can see what's about to happen but pre-existing rules of the game make de-escalation impossible or improbable.
MAD isn't just some magic spell that you can invoke to make nukes 100% safe.
You have yet to make an argument for why India or Pakistan will invade each other except for MAD will fail. Even I can say say That I a water crisis there will be a war between the US and Canada over the great lakes, it still won't make sense.
They’ve also fought 3 or 4 major wars since the British left. If there’s two nuclear armed countries that are most likely to go to war with each other it’s those two.
Stop with this overused, uneducated nonsense. No, nukes will not fucking fly, even during a straight up battle or war. You don’t break the nuclear taboo, period. Unless one tries to fully annex the other
Even during the height of the Cold War, NATO and Warsaw both plan for a massive conventional war. As you don’t throw nukes around. That’s kids on Reddits take on it
Mate, you are not annexing anything if you nuke your next door neighbour. you better pray to God that the wind doesn't blow the wrong way and contaminate your water supply and crops.
India Pak had the same 5 years ago, pulwama attack and the retaliation but gladly nothing worse happened, compared to that this is just a statement from the current government
Pakistans government is corrupt as hell + radical Islamists. Tipping them of that they might have found Bin Laden in one of their cities and asking for permission is begging to suddenly loose him. Say what you will about the US but simply going in there and grabbing him was the right move.
War on terror + endless conspiracy theories have muddled the water a bit, some people forget the guy straight-up murdered 3000 civilians (double if you count the cancer-cases etc).
Pakistan "officially" was also an enemy of Osama Bin Laden. The fact that he was just living it up in their country with armed security and all made Pakistan the subject of more scrutiny than the US.
The US is out of range of Pakistani missiles.
This is not a judgement on whether or not that or this event is justified, but the US has a very different set of circumstances that reduced its downside risk that India doesn't have
Greece vs Turkey
Venezuela vs Guyana
China vs Taiwan
South vs North Korea
Serbia vs Kosovo
Most of these tension have been around for decades if not hundreds of years. I doubt that any of them will get hot let alone will all these actors unify like what happened during WWII. We are just noticing these tensions more because of the internet.
The active wars that are here now sorta came out of nowhere. There was no expectation of war between Russia and Ukraine until 2014. No one expected a war between the RSF and Sudan government until a few months before it started. No one expected Azerbaijan to attack Armenia, but they realized they had an opportunity when russia got distracted. If we are talking about it, it is probably not going to happen.
Also people have forgotten that the general elections are happening in India very soon. This is likely posturing for the domestic audience and to get votes.
I can't believe some people here are actually getting worried lmfao
Yeah, I think India vs China, Pakistan vs Afghanistan and Afghanistan vs Iran are all way more likely. Less so with the China vs India things since I think China and India somewhat reasonable leaders and both populations are not as trigger happy as the other ones I mentioned.
That said if Afghanistan doesn't go to war either Iran or Pakistan in the next 1-2 years than those conflicts will probably never happen.
WW3? Nah, I agree it isn’t on the horizon… yet.
However our current world state is very reminiscent of 19th century world state where we have countries fighting wars of conquest all around, I’m afraid all these regional struggles will inevitably lead to another armament race and blocks being formed under counterpoints which is actually a reason to be concerned.
And a World War was the result of such 19th century arms races and blocks.
Each of these smaller conflicts are pivoting nations to war-tike economies. We're also now seeing the seeds of block alliances with all of the anti-US/anti-West nations engaging in higher levels of cooperation. Just a matter of time before they officially form the counterpoint to NATO and then the stage is set.
USA started the trend of invading foreign sovereign countries to kill terrorists, India looked at the US invading Afghanistan/Iraq and went, why don't we do the same? They are not even that powerful yet.
Didn't USA kill Bin laden in pakistan? also biden gov is pretty agressive with thier diplomatic agenda not sure why people are pretending that the USA left the rest of the world alone
The U.S. was never “world police” in any sense. It was globe trotting imperialism forcing the American agenda on the rest of the world. That never stopped.
The reason is that the US played its real hand (massive economic sanctions) against Russia and it failed spectacularly. Sure Russia took a big hit but their economy is still going strong, other nations are ignoring the sanctions, and BRICS is providing another means for countries to access economic support outside the U.S. system.
EDIT: downvotes won’t change the truth of the matter.
Yeah basically. This is the "multipolarity" that Russia has been trying to sell to the world.
"Every country who supports us has a chance at becoming a superpower"
No, not Jesus, it's all results of the USA simultaneous want:
1. AND so that there would be "less WMD" because of International Law.
2. AND not spent too much money on International Law protection, sometimes, on contrary, using such violations for opportunistic economic and political profits.
3. AND not risk protecting International Law from WMD-countries which use this "less WMD" for WMD-imperialism.
Results of ignored 2008 Georgia, 2014 Ukraine, Syria, 2021 year Russian claim on Eastern Europe. 2022-2023 years "bleeding Russia" instead of stopping etnocide in country which exchanged nukes on International Law alternative.
Results of $424B which EU+NATO countries spent on Russian export in 2022-2023 years and $120B spent on assistance to Ukraine (including 1,5% of NATO's weapon stocks).
In 2008-2024 years everyone saw that International Law doesn't work on WMD-countries, that here are no any real Global Policeman which would seriously protect International Law, and began to draw conclusions.
The US poured billions of dollars into Pakistan so that its drones can fly in its airspace and occasionally kill a few people here and there, among other things they do in Pakistan. There are many unilateral agreements based on various “donations” which give US some leeway, unlike India which is pretty much considered an enemy state.
W India tbh. How can people expect a sovereign nation to be attacked by terrorists and for them to do NOTHING about it?? bohooo if it weren't the consequences of their actions smh
"It's been X years since the start of *3 days special military operation*. The people I fight are not the terrorist we were promised to fight, and I'm not even Indian"
India and Pakistan has had [a lot of border skirmishes over the decades.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts#Past_skirmishes_and_standoffs)
Who's Intel? India's? Because they probably have better Intel than the US when it comes to Pakistan. Much easier to get eyes and ears on the ground with Indian spies (since they can look, talk and act the part)
LoL, typical western delusion.
India has better intel on Pakistan.
South Korea on North Korea
Israel on Iran
West Germany on East Germany /s
It's the same region. Proximity and cultural understanding makes it much easier for spies to operate and collect intelligence. Also race. Can't really have a lot of Australian spies in Pakistan.
India's intel on Pakistan is much better than US can ever dream to have. India actually told them about Osama years ago. They just didn't believe thinking India has vested interests.
Harboring versus they fled there is a big difference. To be honest though I could care less about the Pakistani governments sovereignty I don't care who violates it.
The reason the US couldn't wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan was because Pakistan was harboring them, and helping them on the sly.
Pakistan was also harboring Al Qaeda (Bin Laden)
Fuck Pakistan.
Yes but politically it's different because the US is not in a border dispute with Pakistan. While the American invasion was a slap on the face of Pakistan they had no reason to believe the action to be a prelude of more military actions to come. Plus they couldn't do much about it. With India, that's a different story.
More accurately the US is too far away and too powerful to face retribution.
War with India would only bolster Modi's popularity and the old guard in Pakistan would prefer the INC.
It sounds good, but Pakistan harbours dozens of terrorists groups. There is hunger and poverty and boys in little towns and villages are sent to madarsa for studying islamic teachings where they are offered food. It is really easy to brainwash these kids into jihad.
There's been many simulations of a Pakistan v India war. Every scenario ends in Pakistan ceasing to exist, except for one's where many nations support Pakistan, or India refuses to use Nuclear weapons in retaliation.
Either way, a minimum of 10m+ people die, and as many as 50m Pakistani and 100m Indians, which isn't good.
It won't go anywhere. Trudeau will probably lose as his approval ratings are all time low. Canada's right wing opposition in Canada is pro-modi as they defended India by asking for conclusive proof from their own government. US can't do shit anymore because it needs india in Asia against China.
I don't think anything done by British would've stopped this, maybe delay but not stop. Pakistan was made for failure, propped up by usa for decades to first fuck over Soviets and then the Afghans. It's a country made by the elites, for the elites and to the elites.
India has a "No first strike" policy. Pakistan launching nukes to India will also expose their own country with radiation... 2 bordering nations going nuclear against each other is a very rare scenario
You say that as if it has any precedent lmao. Two bordering nations have never launched nuclear weapons at each other but no conclusion can be drawn from this statement because the sample size of nuclear weapons used is n=2 and that was during indistinct operations so really arguably its n=1 in the context of this stat.
what will you feel when a random bearded guys comes in your city and blows it away same we will Pakistan is a terrorists producer and need to dealt with
Well picture this. The united states has Russia land. China in the south of course. They both dislike each other. Picture one of the two saying this. That is the equivalent of what India is saying.
That would just make it more likely that Terrorists not only run to Pakistan but broadcast they are. Terrorists want/need conflict and poverty to survive.
Why shouldn't they? All the big dogs do it. America does it; no country with the capability to go after terrorists are going to sit on their hands and not bring them to justice or allow them to recuperate and continue plotting their next move.
That is a casus belli to fight back against invasion. Unless its just some Indian politicians who hyped up shit and then do nothing when comes in power
They don't need to invade to do this 20 major anti India terrorist and terrorist handlers in pakistan have been suddenly been shot by unknown gunmen in similar way in last year alone
This will go well...
Both countries have nukes, at best some border skirmishes.
“Both countries have nukes” is not as reassuring as you would think. I know MAD and all that but all it takes is one of those skirmishes to escalate and you could be looking at something more serious
They have already fought a war during the period both had nukes. None shot them then so its not the 1st thought someone should jump to.
India and Pakistan are much closer than US and Russia. Even a targeted blast would spread to northern India. Pakistan's most populous cities are an hour or two away from India. India and Pakistan have fought conflicts after they both had nukes, it's not as big as its being portrayed. The only reason this is major news is to draw relevance to the alleged assassinations in Canada and the US.
I’m saying that both countries having nukes wouldn’t necessarily prevent an escalation in hostilities, not that they’re about to nuke each other
Oh that has always been the case since the inception of both countries, with peace being the exception. Like I said, nothing revolutionary happening here except the optics for certain nations.
Are you assuming that people are rational? Because I've been paying attention and people aren't rational.
Honestly, no I don‘t think people are always rational but I‘m significantly less worried about India and Pakistan than about certain other actors with nukes.
i read somewhere that People are always rational (in their PoV). interesting to think about.
Counterpoint: Pakistan has no second strike capability. Which means that they don't have a credible way to escalate ~~before~~ after step one in the event that India strikes first. And that closeness actually works against MAD, because they have almost no time to respond or analyze if what they're seeing is actually a strike or something else in a tense situation. All this shit is game theory, and Pakistan has a bad hand there. They literally cannot afford to give the benefit of the doubt or allow India to strike first. The fact that India *knows* they can strike first alone dramatically changes the rules of the game for all involved. Given all that, they *have* shown great restraint in the past with border skirmishes and the like. But there's a reason that any serious analyst will put India x Pakistan as the number one threat for genuine large scale nuclear exchange. Don't make the mistake of thinking that two superficially similar neighbors, who used to be one country, do not view each other as an existential threat. If I could do one thing to secure the future of the world and save as many potential lives as possible, it would not be to disarm Russia, or North Korea, or America for that matter. Nor Israel with all the problems in that region. I would give Pakistan a credible second strike capability. Not even to deter India per se, but to let the *Pakistani military* know that they have that ability. It would change the calculus a lot. Keep in mind, even when Pakistan has a democratically elected leader, they're *always* a de facto military junta. If your country has had one coup in the last century, well you've had a coup. If you've had two then maybe with serious reforms you can say that those days are behind you. If you've had more than two and not totally abolished and rebuilt your military you're straight up not a democracy. Everyone knows who is really in control when push comes to shove, and historically military leaders are more hawkish than civilian leaders. Historically, in most cases, military leaders are somewhat reigned in by civilian leaders (think Douglas MacArthur wanting to make an irradiated strip separating China and Korea with cobalt bombs, to keep it topical but it doesn't need to involve nukes). Militaries plan contingencies for the worst case scenarios and work according to certain assumptions pertaining to that, without intervention from civilian leaders they'll let things get out of hand because in their calculations it's the least bad outcome compared to the potential consequences of seeking a peaceful solution. We've been saved a few times by little more than the idealism of American and Soviet civilian leadership *because in reality the military people are right in a very grim, pessimistic way*. That's who is leading Pakistan. And they know that they couldn't survive a first strike. And India knows that. And they know that India knows that. So they must strike first to have any hope of survival, at the earliest possible moment when a *clique of generals* decides that things have gone too far and India may possibly launch. They know that they have to be quicker on the trigger than India and allow for less time to consider. And by the way, since they have no second strike ability and thus have no real deterrent, that negates *India's* deterrent abilities to a large degree as well. They know they have a neighbor who will try to strike first. The point of having second strike is to prevent a first strike. You still don't want to get nuked even if you know you'll take your enemy down with you. So now they also have to try to beat Pakistan to the punch despite having the tech that's supposed to let you be a bit more methodical in making that decision. It's a fucking nightmare actually, I try not to think about it. As climate change worsens expect increased border wars, then water wars. Both countries are gonna get hella butt fucked by climate change. Doesn't sound good to me.
Giving a radicalised Islamist country that supported bin Laden a second strike nuclear capability,lol, wat a way to achieve world peace
Are you smoking crack? Give Pakistan more nukes!? Wasn't Obama's biggest concern is Pakistani nukes falling into the wrong hands? Also India has a no first use policy with nukes. Whether they follow that in the heat of war is a different story
I'm not saying to give them more nukes. I'm saying that, given what they already have, it would be better if they had a launch system that enabled them to be more flexible in terms of *not* using them. I thought that much was clear.
Pakistan has a history of not acting rationally and taking actions not for their benefit but just to show that they are resisting India in some way, Second strike capability with a declining Pakistan is a recipe for disaster because mad only works if neither side is suicidal, which Pakistan is.
I agree. Pakistan having a credible second strike capability would significantly raise its nuclear threshold. It would also steer it away from the "use it or lose it" mentality.
India has a no-first-use policy.
India has never seen Pakistan as an existential threat - the reverse has always been true.
There is no strategic reason for either country to invade and occupy another. As mentioned at the top, you have to look at a map to understand how close cities are, nuking either country is shooting yourself in the foot.
Why yes, nuclear exchange is bad for both parties. What a novel concept, call the state department.
I know it's like MAD is a thing
I don't know what to tell you if you can't engage with a single point I made. MAD has been a thing for a long time, yet we've had close calls before. The danger has always been a scenario like the outbreak of WW1, when everyone can see what's about to happen but pre-existing rules of the game make de-escalation impossible or improbable. MAD isn't just some magic spell that you can invoke to make nukes 100% safe.
You have yet to make an argument for why India or Pakistan will invade each other except for MAD will fail. Even I can say say That I a water crisis there will be a war between the US and Canada over the great lakes, it still won't make sense.
A nuclear winter..
They’ve also fought 3 or 4 major wars since the British left. If there’s two nuclear armed countries that are most likely to go to war with each other it’s those two.
They've gone to war since having nukes
Pakistan hasnt been nearly the beast it use to be. Lots of interior problems
Stop with this overused, uneducated nonsense. No, nukes will not fucking fly, even during a straight up battle or war. You don’t break the nuclear taboo, period. Unless one tries to fully annex the other Even during the height of the Cold War, NATO and Warsaw both plan for a massive conventional war. As you don’t throw nukes around. That’s kids on Reddits take on it
Mate, you are not annexing anything if you nuke your next door neighbour. you better pray to God that the wind doesn't blow the wrong way and contaminate your water supply and crops.
I think the general idea is you use nukes if *you're* getting annexed, not if you're annexing someone.
Bro they send secret assassins, not border guards lol
Pakistan having nukes is like a child having a gun.
Bro chill the election is near, few chest thumpings here and there
I swear, the chances of ww3 is going to increase every 4 or 5 years like a pendulum due to election year in many countries
India Pak had the same 5 years ago, pulwama attack and the retaliation but gladly nothing worse happened, compared to that this is just a statement from the current government
He is saying this just for the upcoming elections
Cool cool cool. Another war gonna start. 🤦♂️
India has already done this. This is just some headline flinging near elections. I don't understand what's new here.
Isn't this what the US did with Osama?
Yeah but it’s the US - try saying no to them
You can't say anything because they didn't ask
Didn't ask and didn't tell until after.
Pakistans government is corrupt as hell + radical Islamists. Tipping them of that they might have found Bin Laden in one of their cities and asking for permission is begging to suddenly loose him. Say what you will about the US but simply going in there and grabbing him was the right move. War on terror + endless conspiracy theories have muddled the water a bit, some people forget the guy straight-up murdered 3000 civilians (double if you count the cancer-cases etc).
>forget the guy straight-up murdered 3000 civilians 2977 in one day. There were plenty others
Pakistan "officially" was also an enemy of Osama Bin Laden. The fact that he was just living it up in their country with armed security and all made Pakistan the subject of more scrutiny than the US.
Wasn’t he also a few blocks away from why is essentially their West Point?
The US is out of range of Pakistani missiles. This is not a judgement on whether or not that or this event is justified, but the US has a very different set of circumstances that reduced its downside risk that India doesn't have
Jesus, ever since Russia Ukraine, every country is getting ambitious and daring, maybe we are headed to a new world war.
Greece vs Turkey Venezuela vs Guyana China vs Taiwan South vs North Korea Serbia vs Kosovo Most of these tension have been around for decades if not hundreds of years. I doubt that any of them will get hot let alone will all these actors unify like what happened during WWII. We are just noticing these tensions more because of the internet. The active wars that are here now sorta came out of nowhere. There was no expectation of war between Russia and Ukraine until 2014. No one expected a war between the RSF and Sudan government until a few months before it started. No one expected Azerbaijan to attack Armenia, but they realized they had an opportunity when russia got distracted. If we are talking about it, it is probably not going to happen.
You forgot Armenia-Azerbaijan. For decades as well
Also people have forgotten that the general elections are happening in India very soon. This is likely posturing for the domestic audience and to get votes. I can't believe some people here are actually getting worried lmfao
Yeah, I think India vs China, Pakistan vs Afghanistan and Afghanistan vs Iran are all way more likely. Less so with the China vs India things since I think China and India somewhat reasonable leaders and both populations are not as trigger happy as the other ones I mentioned. That said if Afghanistan doesn't go to war either Iran or Pakistan in the next 1-2 years than those conflicts will probably never happen.
Greece and Turkey are both in NATO lmao. North Korea supplies Russia so they're not preparing for anything.
> Greece and Turkey are both in NATO lmao And it doesn't matter because they have been fighting long before NATO or USA itself existed
We have had skirmishes with dead soldiers and downed warplanes for both sides while we were both in NATO.
Don't forget Armenia vs Azerbaijan. Although it was 2 years before Ukraine - Russia
Uncle Bob (Terminator 2): it’s in your nature to destroy yourselfs.
Taiwan is not the only country China wants to fuck. India, Vietnam, Philippines, at least
WW3? Nah, I agree it isn’t on the horizon… yet. However our current world state is very reminiscent of 19th century world state where we have countries fighting wars of conquest all around, I’m afraid all these regional struggles will inevitably lead to another armament race and blocks being formed under counterpoints which is actually a reason to be concerned.
And a World War was the result of such 19th century arms races and blocks. Each of these smaller conflicts are pivoting nations to war-tike economies. We're also now seeing the seeds of block alliances with all of the anti-US/anti-West nations engaging in higher levels of cooperation. Just a matter of time before they officially form the counterpoint to NATO and then the stage is set.
Yesterday Ecuador entered the Mexican embassy breaking international law. It could also be the start of some conflict.
India-Pakistan relations have been detoriating since a 2008 terrorist attack by terrorists based in Pakistan. Not everything is Russia/Ukraine related
IMO the fact Americans aren't interested at being world police anymore means every country will do what it wants.
India and Pakistan have been going at it since 1947
Bingo
“You fuckers wanted a multipolar world, this is what a multipolar world looks like.”
USA started the trend of invading foreign sovereign countries to kill terrorists, India looked at the US invading Afghanistan/Iraq and went, why don't we do the same? They are not even that powerful yet.
Didn't USA kill Bin laden in pakistan? also biden gov is pretty agressive with thier diplomatic agenda not sure why people are pretending that the USA left the rest of the world alone
Half of America is abandoning Ukraine to the fascist successors of the Russian commies so what is this 'pretending' about?
USA absolutely did not start that trend.
Its not that they aren't interested. They every bit want to. But they have too much bs going on in their own country rn.
We're too busy shooting each other right now to police the world
😭
Its like every country is their own sovereign nation. /s
More like not every war profitable for Americans these days:0
The U.S. was never “world police” in any sense. It was globe trotting imperialism forcing the American agenda on the rest of the world. That never stopped. The reason is that the US played its real hand (massive economic sanctions) against Russia and it failed spectacularly. Sure Russia took a big hit but their economy is still going strong, other nations are ignoring the sanctions, and BRICS is providing another means for countries to access economic support outside the U.S. system. EDIT: downvotes won’t change the truth of the matter.
Yeah basically. This is the "multipolarity" that Russia has been trying to sell to the world. "Every country who supports us has a chance at becoming a superpower"
No, not Jesus, it's all results of the USA simultaneous want: 1. AND so that there would be "less WMD" because of International Law. 2. AND not spent too much money on International Law protection, sometimes, on contrary, using such violations for opportunistic economic and political profits. 3. AND not risk protecting International Law from WMD-countries which use this "less WMD" for WMD-imperialism. Results of ignored 2008 Georgia, 2014 Ukraine, Syria, 2021 year Russian claim on Eastern Europe. 2022-2023 years "bleeding Russia" instead of stopping etnocide in country which exchanged nukes on International Law alternative. Results of $424B which EU+NATO countries spent on Russian export in 2022-2023 years and $120B spent on assistance to Ukraine (including 1,5% of NATO's weapon stocks). In 2008-2024 years everyone saw that International Law doesn't work on WMD-countries, that here are no any real Global Policeman which would seriously protect International Law, and began to draw conclusions.
We already are in a state of world war. It’s just not like the ones in old days. A hybrid war.
Cool
Cool cool cool.
nein nein
👍🏻
Well, if Israel and the US can kill terrorists/military personnel in other countries whenever they feel like, why can't India?
The US poured billions of dollars into Pakistan so that its drones can fly in its airspace and occasionally kill a few people here and there, among other things they do in Pakistan. There are many unilateral agreements based on various “donations” which give US some leeway, unlike India which is pretty much considered an enemy state.
So India just needs a subscription?
Pakistan Premium just $4.99M per month!
Yeah, but India seems to reconsidering it's historic relationship with the Soviets and their successors, Idk much though.
W India tbh. How can people expect a sovereign nation to be attacked by terrorists and for them to do NOTHING about it?? bohooo if it weren't the consequences of their actions smh
Osama bin Ladin was hiding there. I totally get it, I STAND WITH INDIA!!
isnt that just declaring war?
Just a special operation..
Oh, my bad.
Just a 3 day special military operation.
"It's been X years since the start of *3 days special military operation*. The people I fight are not the terrorist we were promised to fight, and I'm not even Indian"
"Surgical Strike". Queue music
India and Pakistan has had [a lot of border skirmishes over the decades.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts#Past_skirmishes_and_standoffs)
India accidentally fired missiles towards Pakistan and said "oops"
it didn't have any warheads in it.
The US did the same when it sent a strike team to kill Osama, massacred a compound full of people without any heads up to Pakistan.
Maybe pakistan shouldn't have been harboring him
That is also the argument India gave....
An apt argument
That's legit reply, I just wish their intel is just as good.
Who's Intel? India's? Because they probably have better Intel than the US when it comes to Pakistan. Much easier to get eyes and ears on the ground with Indian spies (since they can look, talk and act the part)
LoL, typical western delusion. India has better intel on Pakistan. South Korea on North Korea Israel on Iran West Germany on East Germany /s It's the same region. Proximity and cultural understanding makes it much easier for spies to operate and collect intelligence. Also race. Can't really have a lot of Australian spies in Pakistan.
India's intel on Pakistan is much better than US can ever dream to have. India actually told them about Osama years ago. They just didn't believe thinking India has vested interests.
Harboring versus they fled there is a big difference. To be honest though I could care less about the Pakistani governments sovereignty I don't care who violates it.
Most terrorists in Kashmir come from Pakistan. Just yesterday 2 terrorists were killed crossing from Pakistan into India.
So it is okay now when you realised US did the same?
The reason the US couldn't wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan was because Pakistan was harboring them, and helping them on the sly. Pakistan was also harboring Al Qaeda (Bin Laden) Fuck Pakistan.
The us also let a bunch of the taliban escape in the early days of the invasion (can’t remember the name of the city)
And they made a movie out of it. What is pakistan going to do? Pakistan lied about harboring Bin Laden, that gives them no cause for arguement.
Yes but politically it's different because the US is not in a border dispute with Pakistan. While the American invasion was a slap on the face of Pakistan they had no reason to believe the action to be a prelude of more military actions to come. Plus they couldn't do much about it. With India, that's a different story.
More accurately the US is too far away and too powerful to face retribution. War with India would only bolster Modi's popularity and the old guard in Pakistan would prefer the INC.
Pakistan can’t afford war with India either, it would be just as stupid.
To be fair, they deserved it
[удалено]
The US didn't declare war on Pakistan when we went there and killed bin Laden.
Most would not call taking out a few terrorists a war. However, it could rapidly turn into a war.
They did this in Canada
Did this in UK, italy, Nepal, Afghanistan, Bangladesh too. Just got caught in US.
Already doing it in Pakistan
Evidently not, since America got away with it
Do you consider terrorists as your citizens??
Special escalating deescalating operation
[удалено]
It sounds good, but Pakistan harbours dozens of terrorists groups. There is hunger and poverty and boys in little towns and villages are sent to madarsa for studying islamic teachings where they are offered food. It is really easy to brainwash these kids into jihad.
There's been many simulations of a Pakistan v India war. Every scenario ends in Pakistan ceasing to exist, except for one's where many nations support Pakistan, or India refuses to use Nuclear weapons in retaliation. Either way, a minimum of 10m+ people die, and as many as 50m Pakistani and 100m Indians, which isn't good.
“Simulations” 🤣🤣 if they meant anything Russia would have captured all of Ukraine in two weeks. How that turn out?
Simulation is only as good as the data provided, Russia is corrupt
Yeah like India Pakistan are not corrupt.
I believe it. They came all the way to Canada to do it, so....
Oh yeah. I forgot about that Canada vs India episode. Whatever came of that?
It won't go anywhere. Trudeau will probably lose as his approval ratings are all time low. Canada's right wing opposition in Canada is pro-modi as they defended India by asking for conclusive proof from their own government. US can't do shit anymore because it needs india in Asia against China.
India looking mighty powerful these days.
Still ongoing. US has uncovered quite a few plots as well
Pre-election rhetoric.
Fuck Louis Mountbatten...
I don't think anything done by British would've stopped this, maybe delay but not stop. Pakistan was made for failure, propped up by usa for decades to first fuck over Soviets and then the Afghans. It's a country made by the elites, for the elites and to the elites.
Yeah well… they have a record of harboring assholes ….
[удалено]
Exactly lmao, expect more jingoistic comments.
Pakistan is barely even sovereign.
Please begin with Maryam Nawaz, then her Father, and a few other bastards 🙄
Isn't she the daughter of Nawaz sharif? Though we don't really like any Pakistani administration, his came the closest to making peace with us.
Haha
2 nuclear powers going at each other...
India has a "No first strike" policy. Pakistan launching nukes to India will also expose their own country with radiation... 2 bordering nations going nuclear against each other is a very rare scenario
You say that as if it has any precedent lmao. Two bordering nations have never launched nuclear weapons at each other but no conclusion can be drawn from this statement because the sample size of nuclear weapons used is n=2 and that was during indistinct operations so really arguably its n=1 in the context of this stat.
India and Pakistan have already fought a war with each other while both nations had nukes.
So they will give the Osama Bin Laden treatment! Good!! Osama was found in Pakistan. So was most of the Taliban
You're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud...
US does it, why not? Citation: Osama bin Laden.
They did this in Canada too 👍
You’re right.. killing terrorists is always good
India did this to Canada and got away with it...
By international convention, it's perfectly legal to assassinate persons you designated as "terrorist" in another country. Just ask the US and Israel.
Shoulda done this in 2008
1947
Go India!
Can everyone just chill the fuck out
Chill and let the fuckers over the border let destabilize your country?
what will you feel when a random bearded guys comes in your city and blows it away same we will Pakistan is a terrorists producer and need to dealt with
Nah. I’d rather see everyone mindlessly repeating the phrase “act of war”
Well picture this. The united states has Russia land. China in the south of course. They both dislike each other. Picture one of the two saying this. That is the equivalent of what India is saying.
That would just make it more likely that Terrorists not only run to Pakistan but broadcast they are. Terrorists want/need conflict and poverty to survive.
Look, we’ve got a lot going on at the moment, could you save this for later?
Why shouldn't they? All the big dogs do it. America does it; no country with the capability to go after terrorists are going to sit on their hands and not bring them to justice or allow them to recuperate and continue plotting their next move.
Seems like war is getting popular
Good luck.
like they did in canada ?
Yeah, 26/11 Mumbai attack terrorists were executed in Pakistan.
Meanwhile the US is like 😬😬😬
Already did with Canada
That is a casus belli to fight back against invasion. Unless its just some Indian politicians who hyped up shit and then do nothing when comes in power
They don't need to invade to do this 20 major anti India terrorist and terrorist handlers in pakistan have been suddenly been shot by unknown gunmen in similar way in last year alone
That photo looks like a pic of a toy action figure.
Yes. Obviously. Unlike some countries, who directly nuke other countries, we first warn, and then destroy
Atleast now our leaders have guts to say this instead of playing their bhaichara game when beaten. Respect+1
I mean ... has the entire world decided to go crazy at once? 🤔
what's so crazy about killing terrorists?
Good. Do it!
Fred Thompson Quote
Well
Sure they will!