Use It or Lose It
March 31, 2017 12:59 PM Subscribe
States with nuclear weapons often leave ambiguity in their doctrines to prevent adversaries from exploiting gaps in their proscriptions and to preserve flexibility. But signs of a strategic adjustment in India are mounting. (SLNYT long read, just in case you were sleeping too soundly at night.)
The most optimistic scenario would lock South Asia in a state of mutually assured destruction, like that of the Cold War ... A full nuclear exchange would lead to “a decade without summer.” As crops failed worldwide, the resulting global famine would kill a billion people.
And of course: India’s [previous, more conservative] doctrine initially served to persuade the United States to drop economic sanctions it had imposed over nuclear tests. Given President Trump’s softer stance on proliferation, that impetus may no longer apply.
The most optimistic scenario would lock South Asia in a state of mutually assured destruction, like that of the Cold War ... A full nuclear exchange would lead to “a decade without summer.” As crops failed worldwide, the resulting global famine would kill a billion people.
And of course: India’s [previous, more conservative] doctrine initially served to persuade the United States to drop economic sanctions it had imposed over nuclear tests. Given President Trump’s softer stance on proliferation, that impetus may no longer apply.
A full nuclear exchange would lead to “a decade without summer.” As crops failed worldwide, the resulting global famine would kill a billion people.
It sounds like that refers to a 100-hiroshima sized regional exchange, not a cataclysmic involving the US and Russia. Though, I haven't read the full article(s) to get a sense of how reasonable it's conclusions are, but I recall reading that a lot of the nuclear winter claims have turned out to be overblown after more analysis.
Still, South Asia has a ton of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if a 100-hiroshima war there (plus its immediate local aftereffects) would kill close billion people outright.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:17 PM on March 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
It sounds like that refers to a 100-hiroshima sized regional exchange, not a cataclysmic involving the US and Russia. Though, I haven't read the full article(s) to get a sense of how reasonable it's conclusions are, but I recall reading that a lot of the nuclear winter claims have turned out to be overblown after more analysis.
Still, South Asia has a ton of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if a 100-hiroshima war there (plus its immediate local aftereffects) would kill close billion people outright.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:17 PM on March 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've long felt that India and Pakistan were hands-down the most likely ones to set-off the world's first nuclear conflict.* This does nothing to persuade me otherwise.
* Barring North Korea doing something really stupid while Trump is in the White House, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:50 PM on March 31, 2017 [6 favorites]
* Barring North Korea doing something really stupid while Trump is in the White House, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:50 PM on March 31, 2017 [6 favorites]
Yeah, if you made me lay odds on the pair of states most likely to exchange nukes it would be India and Pakistan, particularly because control over Pakistan's nuclear capabilities appears to be... Dynamic?
posted by PMdixon at 2:34 PM on March 31, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 2:34 PM on March 31, 2017 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure if I would rely on Max Fisher for dispassionate analysis. There is a lot of ambiguity about whether or not India really intends to move to a first-strike doctrine.
On the other hand, Pakistan is moving to implement a nuclear triad--hardly comforting to India.
On the other hand, Pakistan is developing a non-nuclear strategy to counter 'Cold Start'.
Cold Start is the Indian doctrine to pre-emptively invade eastern Pakistan; Pakistan's nuclear capability is supposedly intended to counter Cold Start.
The big question I have is: why are these two countries engaged in a cold war?
posted by My Dad at 2:36 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, Pakistan is moving to implement a nuclear triad--hardly comforting to India.
On the other hand, Pakistan is developing a non-nuclear strategy to counter 'Cold Start'.
Cold Start is the Indian doctrine to pre-emptively invade eastern Pakistan; Pakistan's nuclear capability is supposedly intended to counter Cold Start.
The big question I have is: why are these two countries engaged in a cold war?
posted by My Dad at 2:36 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
The big question I have is: why are these two countries engaged in a cold war?
The animosity goes back to the British partition of India into the two states to give Muslims their own nation.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:51 PM on March 31, 2017 [5 favorites]
The animosity goes back to the British partition of India into the two states to give Muslims their own nation.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:51 PM on March 31, 2017 [5 favorites]
The animosity goes back to the British partition of India into the two states to give Muslims their own nation.
...as demanded by the Muslim League under threat of civil war. Thank Jinnah.
posted by Emma May Smith at 3:04 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
...as demanded by the Muslim League under threat of civil war. Thank Jinnah.
posted by Emma May Smith at 3:04 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
Thorzdad: The animosity goes back to the British partition of India into the two states to give Muslims their own nation.
...with both India and Pakistan ending up thinking that Kashmir belongs to them. (Oh, and China controls part of the state, too, just to make things more complicated.)
Think the US-Soviet conflict, but with the Soviets still controlling part of Alaska and claiming all of it.
posted by clawsoon at 3:11 PM on March 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
...with both India and Pakistan ending up thinking that Kashmir belongs to them. (Oh, and China controls part of the state, too, just to make things more complicated.)
Think the US-Soviet conflict, but with the Soviets still controlling part of Alaska and claiming all of it.
posted by clawsoon at 3:11 PM on March 31, 2017 [3 favorites]
"...but I recall reading that a lot of the nuclear winter claims have turned out to be overblown after more analysis."
The article at that link seems to suggest the opposite: that most of the studies done on "nuclear winter" dramatically underestimated the danger. Still, it's one study done ten years ago. (And another study done by the same authors about three years ago, and another one by the IPPNW done in 2012.) That's not a lot research when you compare it to a field like climate change, even though the researchers use the same mathematical climate models.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:15 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
The article at that link seems to suggest the opposite: that most of the studies done on "nuclear winter" dramatically underestimated the danger. Still, it's one study done ten years ago. (And another study done by the same authors about three years ago, and another one by the IPPNW done in 2012.) That's not a lot research when you compare it to a field like climate change, even though the researchers use the same mathematical climate models.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:15 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, I think if I can understand the basics of Indian nuclear doctrine I will also understand the basics of the history. I just don't understand why the two countries distrust each other so much. So much that it could lead to the death of us all.
posted by My Dad at 3:15 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by My Dad at 3:15 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, I think if I can understand the basics of Indian nuclear doctrine I will also understand the basics of the history. I just don't understand why the two countries distrust each other so much. So much that it could lead to the death of us all.
Because, historically, they used to murder each other in great numbers whenever one outnumbered the other side.
posted by Talez at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2017 [4 favorites]
Because, historically, they used to murder each other in great numbers whenever one outnumbered the other side.
posted by Talez at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2017 [4 favorites]
Thank Jinnah.
You can also thank the British Empire, which left chaos and time bombs in its wake everywhere. They weren't the cruelest colonial masters, but they left the world a much worse place, and those bills are coming due.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:41 PM on March 31, 2017 [8 favorites]
You can also thank the British Empire, which left chaos and time bombs in its wake everywhere. They weren't the cruelest colonial masters, but they left the world a much worse place, and those bills are coming due.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:41 PM on March 31, 2017 [8 favorites]
You can also thank the British Empire, which left chaos and time bombs in its wake everywhere. They weren't the cruelest colonial masters, but they left the world a much worse place, and those bills are coming due.
Good point. I think we've been mistaken through my entire long life that we were living in a new age. We're just living through the continued collapse of Imperialism and Royalism that started between 1914-47. It's just taking a long time. Took a long time for Rome to go from the Senate to ruins too.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:45 PM on March 31, 2017 [5 favorites]
Good point. I think we've been mistaken through my entire long life that we were living in a new age. We're just living through the continued collapse of Imperialism and Royalism that started between 1914-47. It's just taking a long time. Took a long time for Rome to go from the Senate to ruins too.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:45 PM on March 31, 2017 [5 favorites]
About half the human race lives close to the India-Paki border. It would not be a happy day for anybody if they began a nuclear exchange.
posted by homerica at 6:00 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by homerica at 6:00 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
The 'Nuclear Triad' link that My Dad just posted had a rather interesting sub-point in that there is a bit of a 'daisy chain' going on here. Namely, India is not only worried about Pakistan, but also about a recently assertive China (who, let's not forget, has also been to war vs India in the not-to-distant past). Of course, China is worried about not only India, but also the US...
Suffice to say this looks like quite a different situation from the cold war. And to think that we had enough close calls when there were only two participants.
posted by Arandia at 11:28 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
Suffice to say this looks like quite a different situation from the cold war. And to think that we had enough close calls when there were only two participants.
posted by Arandia at 11:28 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
I've shared this before here, but there's a real good vsauce3 video about nuclear winter, which cites many of the same sources discussed here, but in a digestible format (as digestible as contemplating the consequences of even "small scale" nuclear war can be).
posted by reluctant early bird at 11:44 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by reluctant early bird at 11:44 PM on March 31, 2017 [1 favorite]
Because, historically, they used to murder each other in great numbers whenever one outnumbered the other side.
Well that's not much of an answer though, is it? The same can be said if pretty much any place in the planet. We're still within living memory of Europe tearing itself apart during WWII for Christ's sake! WWI too, for that matter.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this comment. But really... to me this sounds just one step away from saying "group A are a bunch of thugs who kill group B people at any opportunity, and vice versa, so this is kind of inevitable". Which is of course 1) wrong and 2) just a little patronizing. But I'm sure that wasn't what was intended...
posted by Arandia at 11:58 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well that's not much of an answer though, is it? The same can be said if pretty much any place in the planet. We're still within living memory of Europe tearing itself apart during WWII for Christ's sake! WWI too, for that matter.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this comment. But really... to me this sounds just one step away from saying "group A are a bunch of thugs who kill group B people at any opportunity, and vice versa, so this is kind of inevitable". Which is of course 1) wrong and 2) just a little patronizing. But I'm sure that wasn't what was intended...
posted by Arandia at 11:58 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]
We're still within living memory of Europe tearing itself apart during WWII for Christ's sake! WWI too, for that matter.
...and in the years since there's been continuous build up of institutions to prevent that recurring. To say that there are no similar institutions in the Indo-Pak case is putting it lightly - the war that resulted in Bangladesh was only in the 70s.
posted by PMdixon at 2:03 PM on April 1, 2017
...and in the years since there's been continuous build up of institutions to prevent that recurring. To say that there are no similar institutions in the Indo-Pak case is putting it lightly - the war that resulted in Bangladesh was only in the 70s.
posted by PMdixon at 2:03 PM on April 1, 2017
That is exactly my point. Saying 'Europe has developed the institutions that make war unlikely, while South Asia has not' actually is an answer. Saying 'they used to kill each other' isn't an answer, because the same is true of many places that aren't volatile today.
posted by Arandia at 4:55 PM on April 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Arandia at 4:55 PM on April 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Europe had war and genocide in the 1990s, don't forget.
posted by clawsoon at 5:35 PM on April 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 5:35 PM on April 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's interesting to consider how those 1990s European wars would have been different, had the USSR not kept all its nukes in Russia / Ukraine and left more of them sitting around.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:31 PM on April 2, 2017
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:31 PM on April 2, 2017
Yugoslavia was a communist state, but it wasn't a member of the Warsaw Pact or closely aligned with the Soviet Union. So the Soviets wouldn't have any nuclear weapons there.
The story of what happened to the Soviet nuclear arsenal after the country collapsed is a fascinating (and probably still mostly classified) one. But the short version is that the Russians who worked with that arsenal were well aware of the importance of their jobs, and they made sacrifices to ensure that their responsibilities were safely discharged. That, combined with American cooperation and assistance, helped save the world from a much darker possible future.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:05 PM on April 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
The story of what happened to the Soviet nuclear arsenal after the country collapsed is a fascinating (and probably still mostly classified) one. But the short version is that the Russians who worked with that arsenal were well aware of the importance of their jobs, and they made sacrifices to ensure that their responsibilities were safely discharged. That, combined with American cooperation and assistance, helped save the world from a much darker possible future.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:05 PM on April 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older “the interactive aspect of the internet of things... | Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, WTF India parading nuclear hardware is Soviet dictatorship level crap, you're better than that.
posted by sotonohito at 1:16 PM on March 31, 2017 [2 favorites]