On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:49:40 +0530 "Ulhas Joglekar" <uvj at vsnl.com>
writes:
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> > Arguably, India would have attacked and overrun Pakistan
> > during the last crisis between the two countries, over a
> > year ago. That didn't happen, at least in part, due to the
> > fact that the two countries are nuclear powers. I don't see
> > nuclear disarmament happening in the Indian subcontinent
> > without a genuine settlement of the issues (i.e. Kashmir) that
> > have kept the two countries at odds with each over for the past
> > half-century.
>
> Even if Kashmir issue is solved, there won't be any nuclear
> disarmament in
> South Asia. India decided to go nuclear after China acquired nukes
> and not
> because of Kashmir question.
>
> > In the mean time, the the possession of nukes
> > by the two countries may help deter them from
> > going to war with one another.
>
> Not necessarily. Limited conventional war is possible. Kargil war
> was such
> war. It can happen in future. Nuclear blackmail another posibility.
But any future conventional wars between India and Pakistan will most likely be limited. And that is something that works to Pakistan's favor since in an all-out conventional war, India's armed forces would most likely overwhelm Pakistan's. An Indian subcontinent version of MAD may help to prevent any more all-out wars in the subcontinent for the foreseeable future.
Jim F.
>
> Ulhas
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com