Pakistan goes to war with India.. We have troops in Afghanistan... what is our response?

[BrentWil]

Each presidential debate, I submit this question. I think it is a legit and complex question. India and Pakistan have a long history, and it is one in which Pakistan is nearly always the aggressor (1971 was an odd case) . The last one in 1999, the Kargil War, almost resulted in the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan. Again, Pakistan was the aggressive nation.

Given that South Asia is one of the most populated areas of the globe and given the fact that we do have military involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan, how should the US respond if Pakistan again is aggressive and goes to war with India? Keep in mind that the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan is not out of the question.

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. We would try to get them to the bargaining table ASAP

Otherwise, Pakistan would go nuclear early. Realistically, that's their only defense. In a conventional war, India's army would swat Pakistan's army like a fly, and then endure decades of guerrila warfare during the occupation.

[BrentWil]

2. India was actually pretty good about not going over the Pak boarder in 99

And they could have done it in 71. They don't want to deal with controlling Pakistan, I don't think.

[nanabugg]

38. Bomb Iran?

Did I win?

[RB TexLa]

40. Right, we'd bring the table and chairs too.

[rhett o rick]

3. Our response would be to take India's side. We would love to see a loose canon

like Pakistan neutralized.

[BrentWil]

4. That might be complicated by the fact that we are still supporting a war in Afghanistan...

We have supplies running though Pakistan.

[RZM]

6. There would be no side-taking

But rather neutrality and pleas to stop the fighting. This would not bode well for US interests and the administration would seek to to prevent it from happening in the first place and end it ASAP if it did happen.

[BrentWil]

9. Well, traditionally we have taken the side of Pakistan...

Both India and Pakistan were shocked in 99 that Clinton was actually fair and called Pakistani's aggression for what it was, aggression.

[ProSense]

5. In that scenario,

we should bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

What's with all these war hypotheticals?

[BrentWil]

7. You have to take them though Pakistan.. that is why this is kind of interesting...

I am interested in National Security issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. They can fly out via Kyrgyzstan

Separate from the network, the United States relies on the Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan to transport American and coalition forces. Manas also serves as an air refueling site for aircraft heading to Afghanistan

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-us-shifts-to-central-asia-for-supply-routes-121911/

[BrentWil]

13. Very difficult to move that amount of supplies and troops that way...

Supply through-put is about 20 percent of going though Pakistan. However, you could start to slowly remove people and equipment though that route.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Most supplies in to Afghanistan go overland via Russia

and intervening countries, not Pakistan. I think Russia would be happy to see them go out too. I could see they might object to American troops on the ground, which is why they'd have to fly out.

This really is not a big concern. And really, your OP question is unanswerable. Why do they go to war, in your scenario? Without knowing that, no-one can say what would be done.

[BrentWil]

29. Kashmir, I assume

That is what they fought about in 47, 65, and 99. In 71, Pakistan were in a civil war and India intervened and help establish Bangladesh. In 47, 65, and 99 Pakistan were the aggressive state and moved forces into Kashmir.

[ProSense]

36. Well

Very difficult to move that amount of supplies and troops that way...Supply through-put is about 20 percent of going though Pakistan. However, you could start to slowly remove people and equipment though that route.

...there you have it. It can be done, difficult, not impossible.

Get the hell out of Aghanistan, crazy-ass hypothetical scenario or not.

[dimbear]

8. Very first thing to do is crack open first aid kit and take the thyroid tablets.

Then come home.

Not much else you can do when the bombs start falling..

[BrentWil]

10. So you don't provide humanitarian aid for the millions that would need it?

Coming home is a nice thought... but quickest means home is though Pakistan.

[dimbear]

14. After a few years the radiation dies down, we could help then.

During doomsday, think mostly of yourself and your family. Others come second.

[BrentWil]

15. What if it is simply a war without nuclear weapons ?

[dimbear]

16. 4th time is the charm.

I'm just assuming it would be nuclear. They hate each other so fiercely it just adds up that way. Add in the minimal nuke security in Pakistan and it's definitely in the cards.

[BrentWil]

19. I am just pointing out that is also a huge assumption...

Given India's action during 99, where they made it a very clear point to not enter Pakistani's territory. Is Nuclear war possible? Yes. Is it certain? No, far from it.

[dimbear]

21. Hope you're right, my friend.

Sad state of affairs between two so similar peoples, and so senseless.

[BrentWil]

26. Well, not really senseless... Jinnah and the Partition explain a lot of it...

Not that Jinnah was really that bad of a guy.

[bananas]

22. A small regional nuclear war could kill a billion people worldwide

See http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310040&mesg_id=310040

and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310040&mesg_id=310048

[BrentWil]

24. Take a look at the population density in Indian and Pakistan cities.

It is an extremely scary thought.

[Zalatix]

17. Exactly where are you deployed out there? I missed that part.

[BrentWil]

23. I have been deployed a few times...

But that isn't the point.

Do you think that this post means that I think any of this is good? Do you think that I think the possible deaths of millions is good? However, I think it is possible and worth a thought concerning a response.

[Zalatix]

32. No, I just find it odd that the people calling to put our troops in harm's way

to save other nations, usually are people who've never seen a lick of action themselves.

I'm tired of America being the world's policeman.

[BrentWil]

39. I am not calling for anything right now...

I just understand the difficult nature of this situation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. We invade Grenada so we can fight a war we can actually win.

[quakerboy]

18. Build our own damn call centers

because India would be a bit preoccupied for a short time?

[BrentWil]

20. The bigger issue is that we do have a globalized economy...

So there would be a lot of adjustments.. I mean, the other issue is China. Pakistan has been friendly with China and India and China still have unsettled issued from their war in 1968. It is a very complex problem..

[quakerboy]

33. It is complex

no doubt about it. So complex that we have no real way to solve it. Any part we play in such a conflict only makes it more complex, and less predictable. If such a war does take place, that might be our call to start at least a little de-globalization. Not becoming disengaged, but rebuilding at least some of the basics that would allow limited self sufficiency in times of need.

[BrentWil]

34. Come on man...

This would be one of the biggest human disasters to happen sense world war two. If a war went nuclear, we are talking millions of deaths. And all you would suggest is trade policy?

And, I don't agree with you. THey would be absolutely devastated, and following your policies would be like kicking a person with cancer when they are down.

[quakerboy]

35. Come on right back at ya

Do you have a way to neutralize a nuclear weapon?

I fail to see what great power we would have to change the course of things that China, with far more direct interest, could not be able to exert. If we cannot even get Pakistan to give up Bin-Laden, at the height of our military power, how are we going to keep them from pursuing a course of war with a traditional opponent?

I don't see how dropping our troops into the middle of a nuclear war would benefit either side, civilians, or ourselves. What would you suggest?

[BrentWil]

37. Actually...

I would assume the most sane policy would be to put pressure on India not to cross the Line of Control (LOC) and go to the UN and get pressure on them both to stop.

China doesn't have the military deployability, strike or intel assets we have. As a subset to these things, we should have a military plan ready to launch strikes into Pakistan IF a nuclear launch was close to happening. Giving up Bin-Laden is difficult because he is a person who can hide. Actual nuclear weapons lead the type of visual signature that our intel assets can find. However, this should only be launched as a very last choice option.

Nuclear war in South Asia is in no ones interest. Preventing it should be our policy, even if we use the military to prevent it.

[quakerboy]

42. Actually, being world police should not be our policy

Nuclear war anywhere is in no ones interest(at least not long term, and not anyone I would care to be associated with). That is true enough.

I would agree with your first statement. Pressure and use what influence we have. But if one side or the other is determined to have that fight, barring the use of extreme force, we cannot stop it.

Jumping into another war on the other side of the world from home is not the answer. War rarely benefits anyone in the long term. But, generally speaking, breaking up a domestic dispute is not quite as simple as picking a fight with one side or the other first.

[BrentWil]

46. Its not a domestic dispute

India and Pakistan are two different states. Have been so since the British Raj. That said, I am suggesting a military strike with a very limited scope (elimination of Pakistan's nuclear capability) as a last means to prevent nuclear war. That is worth the use of military force to prevent, given the number of lives (millions) and the fact that India is an important partner for us. We have both humanitarian rational and strategic self interest rational to do something.

[BrentWil]

41. One note:

I am not suggesting military planning against India because I don't think they would be first to launch. This is for two reasons. The first is history and traditions. The second is the wind. Not a small issue here.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. We go to the UN to try and get the entire world on board

with stopping it before it goes nuclear.

China is in the neighborhood and isn't going to want to be downwind of the fallout.


We sure as hell don't put our troops anywhere near the line of fire, that is for damn sure.

[BrentWil]

27. China has a good relationship with Pakistan and still has claims in India from their 1968 war with

India. People forget that fact. The war between India and China did not fully settle the dispute and China has a relationship with Pakistan. DOn't be so sure they will stand with us.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. I'm not. I just think that keeping it from escalating

would be in their own self interest.

[BrentWil]

31. Self interest is always in the eye of the beholder...

There have been issues in the past and China takes territorial issues very seriously.

[WCGreen]

43. India is a democracy and a vital trading partner with the US..

I would hope we would support India.

But then again, the Russian would probably support Pakistan as would China.

[BrentWil]

45. Well, I am not so sure "support" is the right answer...

Getting them both to stop fighting and if need be, supporting India. However, how do you support India with troops in Afghanistan?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I'm Rooting For India

.

[BrentWil]

47. Why NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Because They Are A Democracy

.

[BrentWil]

50. What if India starts it? NT

[flexnor]

48. we can draft our kids to protect the jobs we moved to India

we must protect jobs!