Still convinced this was always the plan ever since the highly suspect (likely false flag) terrorist attack that India was foaming at the mouth over. They are trying to emulate their closest allies, the Israelis, on how to handle the occupation and ethnic cleansing of an undesirable “enemy”.
Hey remember like a week ago when the threat of nuclear war wasn’t imminent? That was nice.
I’m 99% sure the terrorist attack in kashmir was done by the CIA. I feel like they are trying to provoke a nuclear exchange between 2 nations that wont set off the MAD response as a way to normalize the use of Nuclear weapons. I think this was part of the plan with the war between israel and Iran but Iran didn’t take the bait.
I think the USA wants to break the taboo on nukes because they are convinced it is only way america can actually win a war but it wont work if they are seen as the people who started using nukes first.
Oh god. This reminds of that “leftist” former right wing YouTuber that was trying to normalize “tactical nukes” in the Ukraine war a few years back. I forget his name. But that shit was insane. He was getting some spotlight for “leaving the right” and then really made it clear he hadn’t.
I’ll try to find it.
Adam something?
Yep. That’s the name. But no luck finding the video. I just remember watching it and being like “yeah, maybe this guy has some good jabs at Elon Musk but I think I’m done watching with the ‘nukes aren’t that bad’ take”
I don’t think it was a video, I remember he made a post about this, maybe a youtube community thing or perhaps I saw it on twitter. He actually wrote an entire lengthy explanation, and didn’t stop to think “WTF am I saying” before hitting publish, which is arguably worse than a video.
Ah. I think you’re right. I was a community post. He also posted a LOTR meme about “fighting alongside Nazis” unironically.
This would be an incredibly stupid plan—if they start launching nukes there’s a reasonably high chance that someone else’s detection systems will cause preemptive launches and that’s all folks! Even if that didn’t happen, a serious nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could cause a global famine for years and be nearly as catastrophic.
Of course it’s a stupid plan. So was arming the anti-communist mujahideen in Afghanistan and we all know where that went. So was provoking russia in Ukraine. So was imposing tariffs on China. When have warmongers ever cared about collateral damage or things spiraling out of control? When has the stupidity and potential for backlash ever stopped the white supremacist imperialists from doing anything?
Yeah those are all bad, but deliberately provoking a nuclear conflict makes no sense, it’s literally no win. It’s generally accepted that there really isn’t such a thing as a regional or contained nuclear conflict. The other examples are bad, but have a few steps until immediate apocalypse. Even Ukraine with Russia Sabre-rattling about nukes would still have required them to initiate a nuclear conflict on their own. Kashmir is top of the list for how nuclear wars are likely to kick off for last decade.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I dunno, you’d have to really ready to dr.Strangelove it up in a mineshaft to green light this.
Dr. Strangelove wasn’t comedic fiction it was satire. In other words it was only funny because it was true. Nothing has changed.
Well, I get that? But satire presents exaggerated versions of the truth in order to display the absurdity of that truth. I guess I’m just skeptical that the grifter narcissists currently running things are ready for bunker living, but again, there are bunkers, and the tech/hedge fund set has been very apocalyptically oriented last few years, so perhaps.
The argument I can see for it (from the great power geopolitical perspective) is that it would be a nuclear regional war right in Russia/China’s backyard, and might distract/degrade them. But again, the very high chance of total annihilation inherent in this should immediately discount it as a viable action. But we also live in some sort of hyper reality at this point, so perhaps the capitalist death-drive really is being made real right now.
The advantage usa gains isn’t against Russia and China directly. Its against everyone else. usa, Russia and China aren’t going to nuke India/Pakistan if they nuke each other. Everyone knows where the missiles are going. If they aren’t the target they wouldn’t want to set off the MAD cascade. Everyone would just watch.
usa has been proved to be a paper tiger. (they can’t even subdue the 10th poorest nation in the world) If they want to force their will on a smaller nation they just can’t do it anymore. Their economic weapons have been thwarted and workarounds are in place. Their navy is losing billions of dollars in jets to a nation who’s entire air force is a hand full of helicopters. Their tanks and troop carriers have been proven to be 2nd rate and their recruitment is in the toilet. Modern anti air is better than american jets or stealth tech. Regime change and Color revolutions just don’t work anymore. The empire’s power is slipping through its hands like Jesus holding a marble and everyone is watching.
The one thing that nobody can argue against is the american nuclear arsenal. (Russia and China could but don’t want to because it would be messy) But usa can’t use nukes to bully people because they have been locked by a unwritten rule that nukes are only to stop people from attacking you. The international rulebook is in the process of being shredded. The ICJ ICC and UN have been trashed by israel. Genocide is back on the table but the one thing that could turn everything around is if america used its nukes offensively. The whole world would turn against them if they crossed that line.
So how do they get past that blockage? How do they get the only tool they have left out of the tool box?
They get someone else to crack the seal first, break the taboo. but it can’t be done in a way that brings condemnation. The use of nukes needs to be justified. So if both sides have and use nukes? That’s a victimless war crime.
Then usa does a demonstration (which would be Yemen and they’d claim they had a nuke) and then anyone not explicitly protected by a large nuclear power is prey to nuclear blackmail. Canada and greenland would be part of america in months.
we cannot let a cbt gap form
deleted by creator
I mean Pakistan is a crucial part of the BRI, and India is in BRICS. A war between India and Pakistan would be a crippling blow to the alternate economic system that’s developing outside the US right now. If this goes nuclear, then Eurasia will be most affected.
Let’s all hope that China and Russia’s links with India and Pakistan are enough to reign them back in and force them to talk. Sadly I don’t expect much sanity from the Hindu supremacists in India and it really feels like they are the ones in the driver seat on this. “Ethno-nationalism, not even once.”
I know, despite general racism against south Asians, Hindu supremacists are often treated as “the good ones” within England. Which is to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is part of a deliberate effort to use India as a proxy to kill more Muslims, without white people taking casualties. That would be on track with how white supremacists usually operate.
I’m hoping that people running India are aware enough to realize that they’re not gonna be better off in case of a nuclear holocaust.
Modi’s poll numbers must’ve been doing pretty badly if he’s trying to start a war.
Doesn’t China also occupy a part of Kashmir? How do they relate to this war?
They do, but as far as I know that dispute is not related to the one between India and Pakistan.
Two very important points to consider while assessing the current nuclear threat in the ongoing India–Pakistan conflict are, first, that unlike India, Pakistan does not subscribe to the No-First-Use policy. This makes it more likely that Pakistan could initiate a nuclear attack, especially since it cannot match India’s strength in conventional warfare.
Second, India, unlike Pakistan, has a robust nuclear defense system that holds the capability to deter a nuclear attack by air, land, and sea. Strategically, therefore, it would not be a sound decision for a country like Pakistan to engage in nuclear warfare. And considering the current geopolitical world order, both China and Russia would likely ensure that restraint is exercised by both India and China, and that the situation is de-escalated. While India would prefer to avoid a direct conflict with China, the odds are disproportionately stacked against Pakistan. Pakistan simply cannot afford to engage in a full-scale war with India.
Now, turning to the Kashmir issue and terrorism, it is an extremely complicated matter, and it would be naive to take sides based on binaries. What truly matters is the current condition of the people living there. Since the abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, the Indian portion of the state has experienced a semblance of democracy, albeit under heavy surveillance by the central government. Economic conditions had slowly begun to improve, and tourism had grown. The state’s economy was projected to see ~7% increase in 2024–25, but after the Pahalgam attack, the situation regressed significantly. However, terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the region. Kashmir has long been disputed and has experienced consistent turmoil since its inception. With periodic armed attacks, ordinary people have found themselves trapped in a persistent political quagmire.
India and Pakistan have been in conflict for decades, but the stakes became significantly higher after both countries acquired nuclear armaments. Since then, Pakistan has been engaging with India through the proxy of terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba. India has been subjected to a series of terrorist attacks masterminded by those organizations based in Pakistan. After the most recent attack, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif even confessed on Sky News to Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorist groups. What was once an open secret has now been publicly acknowledged, leaving little room to deny Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism.
But is Modi going to take meaningful action beyond surgical strikes like Operation Sindoor? Most likely, no. This article offers a thoughtful assessment and critique of Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy approach.
There is no doubt that right-wing sentiment is growing in India, mostly targeting Islam. However, the rapid radicalization and weaponization of economically disadvantaged Muslims across the country does not help the Muslim cause. This is very much a class issue, and the class disparity in India is enormous. Religious education of all kinds should be prohibited so that children can grow up with a more scientific temperament. For the country to thrive, religious exploitation, whether through Hindutva politics or Islamic fundamentalism, needs to be stopped.
Second, India, unlike Pakistan, has a robust nuclear defense system
I don’t think such a thing exists.
Nuclear deterrents exist, but one cannot say for certain how effective they are until a nuclear attack occurs. India’s DRDO has a program called the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, which has been developing deterrents as part of a holistic defensive strategy.
A deterrent is a means of getting the other side not to nuke you in the first place. If an attack occurs, that means your deterrent has failed.
A defense system is a means of intercepting nukes once the attack has started. I don’t think any country on the planet can do that reliably. And the reliability has to be extremely high to be worth anything at all, because even one nuke getting through can mean an entire metro area is leveled.
That’s not how missile defense systems work. Missile deterrents are surface vehicles equipped with radar and their own missile systems. The radar detects, within its range, incoming missiles, drones, or jets and launches a missile to neutralize the target.
India is currently using the Russian-made S-400 which has a range of ~450km.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your comment because I’m quite sleepy. We’re talking about the same systems. Missile defense systems are also known as deterrents, as they deter incoming missiles from hitting their intended targets.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
You are being very charitable to India here. What Kashmir has cannot be sincerely called a democracy if you have to mention that it is heavily controlled by the centre. The deep Islamophobia is not a class issue. Union government has even tried to alter the ethnic and religious makeup of the region with policies like the settlement of Kashmiri pandits.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I never said that Kashmir has complete democracy. My personal belief is that the whole region should be fully autonomous, but we all know that’s not possible. Even if India were to relinquish its part of the region, Pakistan would likely move quickly to take over the rest, and that’s something a significant portion of the population there does not want.
India, as a country, is an anomaly; it shouldn’t exist in its current form, but it does, and colonial rule is to be blamed for that. It is culturally, linguistically, and ideologically fragmented, and the inherent differences between its regions make it all the more surprising that India has survived this long. However, under the current leadership, social cohesion is at risk. Cracks are already visible in the southern part of the country, and similar tensions could emerge in the east as well.
Union government has even tried to alter the ethnic and religious makeup of the region with policies like the settlement of Kashmiri pandits.
So, if a region of Kashmir is to be integrated into India, it’s only fair that it follows the same laws as the rest of the states. Whether it concerns the resettlement of Kashmiri Pandits or land acquisition by non-Muslims, the same rules should apply uniformly across the country. The concept of India is based on complicated, and often flawed, decisions. Let me remind you that the socio-economic landscape of the eastern region deteriorated significantly after the introduction of the Freight Equalization Policy in the 1950s under Prime Minister Nehru’s socialist government. Still, at the time, it was seen as necessary to ensure national integration.
In my opinion, Kashmir will never see complete peace, much like Gaza. Even if Pakistan were to gain full control over the region, its fragile economy and political instability would prevent any meaningful resolution. The conflict will persist, and that is truly unfortunate for Kashmir.
The deep Islamophobia is not a class issue.
I did not correlate class with Islamophobia. Islamophobia exists across all strata of society. What I said was that it is easier to radicalize and weaponize individuals, both Hindu and Muslim, from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and this is happening at the grassroots level.
What points are you trying to make exactly? Your responses look very chatgptesque. There are a lot of words but very little conviction.
That’s because you’re trying to find definitive, binary answers to a problem that is much more complex. I’ve replied to all your questions, but if you’re still unclear about my stance or thoughts, feel free to ask specific questions and I’ll clarify.
Edit: Also, what the fuck am I supposed to do if I talk/write like that? I was born before ChatGPT, so maybe ChatGPT is wreckministeresque.
I am not trying to find binaries or anything like that because I just don’t know what you are getting at. Like
So, if a region of Kashmir is to be integrated into India, it’s only fair that it follows the same laws as the rest of the states. Whether it concerns the resettlement of Kashmiri Pandits or land acquisition by non-Muslims, the same rules should apply uniformly across the country.
What are you trying to say here? Sending Hindu settlers to Kashmir is following “the same laws as the rest of the states”? Or the opposite? Your line of reasoning does not make sense to me.
Not actively sending Hindus, but keeping the option open for people of any religion to buy property in India-administered Kashmir, just as it functions in every other Indian state. Since Article 370 has been abrogated, it is only fair that Kashmir be treated like any other Indian state. Of course, this raises concerns about gentrification, but that is an inevitable phenomenon in our capitalistic reality. As I mentioned earlier, an autonomous Kashmir would be the ideal scenario for the region. However, historically, Kashmir’s autonomy has often served as a means for Pakistan to pursue its expansionist ambitions.
1947: India and Pakistan gain independence from Great Britain. The ruler of Kashmir initially decides to remain independent, choosing not to become a part of either Pakistan or India. After militants from Pakistan invade, he signs a letter acceding to India. Pakistan does not recognize the letter as a legal document, sparking war. In 1949, the two countries agree to withdraw all troops behind a mutually agreed ceasefire line, later known as the Line of Control.
1965: India and Pakistan go to war again over Kashmir. The clash did not resolve the dispute over the territory.
1999: India and Pakistan fight a limited border conflict in Kashmir, after armed invaders from Pakistan cross the Line of Control in the town of Kargil.
Pakistan has always been a theistic nation with expansionist ambitions; however, it lacks the might and resources to fulfill them. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was a clear example of its aggressive stance; it was denied a united Islamic nation by the very Muslims of Bangladesh. A similar form of aggression has been experienced by the Kashmiri Muslims for decades. There’s a reason why the Kashmiris chose to elect a pro-India government in the 2024 election, even after the abrogation of Article 370.
Moreover, Kashmir has never been a Muslim-only region. The Mughal invasion, like the arrival of Islam, was a relatively recent development in the context of Kashmir’s long and rich history. I’m not sure if you’re already familiar with the region’s history, but in case you’re not, I recommend the following articles:
An article on the original inhabitants of Kashmir.
Hindus have always been part of Kashmir’s demographic fabric, and they remain so to this day. However, there have been efforts by Islamic fundamentalists to alter that balance, leading to the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, the most persecuted non-Muslim community in the region. Therefore, claiming that the government is trying to change the region’s ethnic makeup seems somewhat misguided. And to be clear, this is not a statement about Muslims being bad or Hindus being good; that’s a reductive and pointless debate. This is ultimately a matter of power structures.
Ah yes. A Hindu nationalist party stuffing a significantly muslim state with hindus is doing it for the benign reason of restoring the original ethnic constitution.
Please keep this nonsense to yourself. There is a lot of middle ground between a fully autonomous Kashmir and turning it into a tyrannical police state. A kinder India would have been able to manage this better but fascists gonna fascism.
Both-sidesing this deserves the deepest eye roll. As a marxist you already should know GDP increase in a capitalist economy does not indicate who is being uplifted here. Kashmir is effectively an open air prison where Indian solidiers do wanton crimes against humanity, while privileged Indian citizens can do their tourism.
Reciting bourgoisie laws as if the elite will abide them again receives further eye rolls. Capital rules not what they purport to everyone else.
Pakistani military has long been an extension of defacto US foreign policy / dollar capital power but then so is the majority of Indian bourgeoisie apparatus from government to media.
the rapid radicalization and weaponization of economically disadvantaged Muslims across the country does not help the Muslim cause.
Why not subsitute the word Hindu in there? There is a clear power dynamic between the ruling capital and the majority of the 200 million muslims in India. The violence of the oppressed class has never in the history of humanity equivalent to the violence of oppressors.
If possible, could you make a post with your thoughts regarding India and Pakistan?
There are plenty of people that will love to read an in depth analysis of this topic. It will be highly appreciated.
First of all, I am not a Marxist, so our political ideologies might differ. Although I draw a great deal of inspiration from Marx’s work, I am more of an advocate for Social Democracy. Therefore, my views might appear more centrist to you.
Kashmir is effectively an open air prison where Indian solidiers do wanton crimes against humanity, while privileged Indian citizens can do their tourism.
I did mention in my comment that the state is under heavy central surveillance, and I also agree that the people there have been subjected to military abuses on multiple occasions. However, the majority of Kashmiris do not support Pakistani occupation of the territory. They want peace and prosperity, something that, unfortunately, neither Pakistan can give, nor the Indian government seems able to provide under the current border issues. Don’t forget that the greatest casualties in the cross-border conflicts have been Kashmiri Muslims, both literally and figuratively.
Pakistani military has long been an extension of defacto US foreign policy / dollar capital power but then so is the majority of Indian bourgeoisie apparatus from government to media.
Yes, so what about it? What are you trying to suggest?
Why not subsitute the word Hindu in there?
Did you even read what I wrote? I mentioned both Hindutva politics and Islamic fundamentalism as problems. I’m an atheist and a positivist, so I’m equally opposed to both. India is an extremely complicated country, with discrimination operating on multiple levels. Even within the majority religion, there is discrimination. Like I said, it is a class issue.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
