Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario

Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarms in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan's bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?

The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government's involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India's own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a "limited war".

For Pakistan, there is no concept of "limited war". Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian's numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the "poison pill" defense of its nuclear weapons.

The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...

The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country's major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan's attack on seven major Indian cities:

NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.

Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.

Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that "could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems." More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.

An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.

Shuja Nawaz is the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford University Press 2008) and the forthcoming FATA: A Most Dangerous Place (CSIS, January 2009). He can be reached at www.shujanawaz.com

Comments

[gsc 99]

A Pakistani has confessed to his involvement. See this news post below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/31/pakistani-confesses-to-mu_n_154474.html

[indiamerican]

Please understand that Pakistanis are victims of their own homegrown terrorism. So everyone who continues to harp on the 'we are victims too' should give up that line. It does not work on the Indian side of the border. "Pakistanis don't hate Indians" line also does not fly with years of proof that point the other way. The constant threat of nuclear bomb is ineffective too. The only reason Indians are reluctant to act is that anything they do will precipitate Pakistan's return to military rule (which is going to happen anyway). The Taliban will either enter the Pak government by aligning with the Pak army or they will win by defeating the military directly. This is inevitable if America continues to stay and increase troop levels in Afghanistan. By the way Kashmir voted and now will have a democratically elected government. Where is the op-ed pieces on huffingtonpost on the triumph of democracy over seperatists and terror?

[newshawk14]

The thesis of this article is unsupportable, in that it presupposes that only the US and Russia can
appreciate MAD (mutually assured destruction). India and Pakistan need to work out their differences,
but as long as Pakistan tries to keep up the fiction that Pakistan was not involved in the Mumbai
massacre, I see the potential for a military response from India, which I see as being very problematic.

[Archontruth]

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

[SaulZ]

I firmly believe that neither India nor Pakistan should have been nuclear states. Furthermore, I believe that the relationship between the two countries should have been like (a non-nuclear) USA and Canada.

When Pakistani President visited India just before the Mumbai attacks, he said one thing - "there is an Indian in every Pakistani". This is absolutely true. I have not found a single Pakistani showing his or her enimity towards India. However, I have found Indians bad mouthing Pakistan as soon as they heard the news of Mumbai attacks and their media started its media onslaught against Pakistan within a few seconds without any investigations having even started.

The media onslaught looked like a drama as if the event and the follow-up was scripted.

[Strategy]

Well said !! Only if Pakistani President was actually "in charge" of the country...

[SaulZ]

Well, we knew from the beginning that it was Indian media that started the war hysteria, joined soon by the western media led by BBC.

Friday, December 26, 2008
India blames media for war hysteria

http://canadianarmedforcesblogger.blogspot.com/2008/12/india-blames-media-for-war-hysteria.html

Not only war hysteria, Indian media also organized discussion panels that proposed encouraging the world to go for an economic boycott of Pakistan (which would have us believe that the country is composed of 160 million terrorists).

Due to war hysteria led by their media, Indian posters on HuffPo got carried away posting messages in support of total war on Pakistan.

If now NATO and Canadian forces see more casualties in Afghanistan as a result of Pakistani military moving towards its eastern borders, an irrisponsible nuclear India, where Government decisions are made under the pressure of war mongering media and fundamentalist politicians, will be held accountable.

[Strategy]

Instead of blame shifting, nuclear blackmailing , Why doesn't pakistani military act against terror networks? Pakistan waiting for "evidence" ? I guess not : http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79808&sectionid=351020401
This is what happens when "evidence" is presented to pakistan . The next response is "we don't know where these non state actors are"(Masood Azhar).. "they aren't in Pakistan" (Dawood Ibrahim)
Did India moved troops to the border? No!

So, who exactly is playing games instead of focusing on the real issue?

[CaptD]

The action by a "semi-trained" small group of Terrorists effecting Pakistan. & India and the larger hunt for Terrorists is exactly the same tactics as the Terrorists are using in Palestine & Israel. I hope India learns from what Israel has done to NOT use Country to Country attacks but offers to take part in Supervised "Joint" action against "THEIR" terrorist strongholds...

[CaptD]

It is easy and popular to send troops to the border but it is harder to police your own country against terrorists supported in part by Drug Lords... This is a PR move by Pakistan; I hope that India does not follow suit!

Now a small group of terrorists has attacked India and changed the Politics between two Atomic powers AND reduced the search/policing of Pakistan's "frontier" areas; which is probably the initial reason for the attack in the first place!

I wonder what would happen if a group of "County-Less" trained "terrorists" attacked a major Financial Center & City in Pakistan and also left clues pointing toward India; would Pakistan behave any differently than India is doing now or would they expect India to make sure Pakistan does not get attacked again?

[SaulZ]

CaptD:

Pakistan is facing terrorist attacks every single day, but it is not accusing India of them , at least not yet. But rest assured this posture will not continue :-)

Pakistani security agencies have been claiming Indian hand in Balochistan attacks for ages now. Pakistani Government does not deem it beneficial to make it an internation issue yet.

[Strategy]

Whats your point? If Pakistan itself is "Victim" , then why waiting for "Indian Evidence" to act against terror networks? When will Pakistan stop using "Terrorists" as foreign policy tool?
At least now, when the "assets" are becoming "liabilities'.... Pakistani Military establishment should choose to abandon this proxy tool..

[Quattro]

Pakistani nuclear blackmail at its best. Pakistanis don't have the guts to go nuclear because the Indian retaliation will vaporize your failed state. They can't control their army, the terrorist ISI and they have the audacity to lecture others on restraint.

[cherry33]

thecomicproject-

Your analogy of housing a destructive force with full knowledge makes a good point. I'm just not sure if retaliating is the answer - not that India doesn't have a moral highground. It's so heady. To me, coming from a background that was avidly against the partition, a lot of this terrorism going on the world is largely (not all) caused by the partition and the fight over Kashmir. I can't see, no matter what move India takes right now, how this will ever be over. Can you? Most wars are fought between countries that participate fully in their acts. Pakistan government, to our knowledge, hasn't fully participated. I'm just wondering what you think would happen if India fought Pakistan.

[thecomicproject]

I am not advocating war but India is damned if it goes to war, and damned if it doesn't. Governments never participate directly, the Libyans did and see what happened. India has its own problems and god knows we have screwed up big time in so many different ways that we can write "how not to" books on it. Our internal problems might be our own making and we need to handle that but what about the external stuff?

In India, the anger is still directed internally and while the media is trying to up the ante, people understand the impact of war and how it can slow down a progressing country. There is no easy solution.

However, if we do go to war, then it won't go nuclear. Pakistan, however desperate, will not push the button. India is not interested in occupying Pakistan. There's too heavy a price to pay and it's not in our DNA. At best, it will be a war that will lead to India creating a bigger buffer for itself against future incursions. Even 10 years ago (during Kargil), information did not spread like it does now and considering how connected we are to the events around us, this will deepen the rift between India and Pakistan and a generation of Indians and Pakistanis will grow up hating each other when earlier it was just dislike.

[Strategy]

There is a "Broadway Show" going on in Pakistan at the expense of American Taxpayer money...
Pakistani army is "creating" Taliban..... ..20 yrs..... Pakistani Army is "chasing" Taliban....
7 yrs later.... Taliban is fighting against Indians along with Pakistani army....
Wait..!! Who was fighting whom again?..

[rasit]

Who is on first, who knows; it all depends....

[TXfemmom]

The author is a voice of reason. The problem is that Southeast Asia has never been a beacon for reason. The United States under Bush has not been a beacon, either.

If Pakistan is ignorant enough to unleash nuclear weapons, India shall retaliate and the whole world would suffer from that, as well as the two players. In the end, anything left of Pakistan, and the possibility of some of their nukes still existing or the facilities to produce them, would fall to the world including the United States. In the end, the United States and the world could never, ever permit the possibility of those nukes falling into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Nuclear war would be a disaster for the countries and the world, but let's face it, none of us would have believed what has happened in this country and the world in the last eight years, had we been told that during better times.

[homesteader]

But, won't a couple of years of nuclear winter and a few million people dead will lessen the effects of climate change?

And probably do all kinds of horrible things to future generations anywhere downwind, make other real nuclear wars--as opposed to the DU that we use, although that may be bad enough--more likely.

Oh well, I guess that this is not a reasonable solution.

[walk0nwalls]

Thank you sir. Now if only the Military wing of Pakistan could get under control.

[todhiye]

PROOF
If India attacked pakistan, and india succeded in the first few days, hold some pakistani terotory-then no one can have moral authority to ask pakistan not to use its full arsinal including neclear Bomb.
our leaders should talk to india and tell them the Mumbai terror attack wasn't pakistani attack. India should refrain from a neclear war with their naibor; if that happens, Alqaeda and other extremist organisations both in Pakistan and India will be the winning ones. why? becouse death and destruction will come to the both nations and they will be part of the fighting forces probably the winning one.
thus, International community should stop this war by any cost.

[Strategy]

Typical Pakistani Nuclear (i can spell that) Blackmail

[Alethia]

Mr. Shuja Nawaz:

You are a voice of reason in this world of confusion.

Where are the responsible world leaders needed to restrain India and Pakistan?

Please come forth and start your job. Urgent.

[Strategy]

How about urging Pakistan to act against "existing" terror networks? That i guess would be a more reasonable step forward rather than "restraint else we will nuke" blackmail...
Wait! Pakistan itself is a "victim"...Thats right.. So please act against the terrorists rather than blame-shifting and diverting attention....
Let's assume Indians themselves staged mumbai 2008... and hence they are not providing any "evidence" to pakistan...
If Pakistan itself is a "victim" , then are they still waiting for "Indian evidence" to act ?

[Alethia]

Pakistan is acting against terror networks. The entire NorthWest Frontier is currently a battle zone between the government and the Taliban.

And I would like to see Pakistan and India cooperate on intelligence when it comes to the Mumbai massacre. Yes, remnants of the LeT should be pursued in Pakistan just on evidence
already there of their terrorist activities within Pakistan.

I agree with you, Strategy. But some one has to help to fill the trust gap between the two countries so they may tackle the job of investigating the Mumbai attack. That remains to be accomplished.

[Alethia]

Strategy, I think we are agreeing more and more.

My only remaining concern (and it seems to have subsided in the past 24 hours) is any impending war between India and Pakistan.

I think eventually both countries will come closer and terrible events like Mumbai can be avoided through their joint cooperation.

The anger should be cut on both sides and they should get down to the business at hand.