pull down to refresh
113 sats \ 10 replies \ @Coinsreporter 6 May \ parent \ on: LIVE UPDATES: India-Pakistan Fighting Kicks Off After Kashmir Terror Attack news
Well, Pakistan started it once before in 1999-2000. At that time they were also nuclear states.
For a long time I had thought that there must be talks over any or whatever issues there. But Pakistan doesn't care about talks and is not a state governed by single authority.
I would argue that it is actually a state governed by a single authority. The authority though is the military. Now the bigger question is how functional even are the nukes Pakistan has and that is where I think a critical issue lies I am not sure how many on either side actually work or work well
reply
That's not a risk I'd be willing to accept, but I'm sure the decision makers aren't the ones who will personally pay the price.
reply
Did that escalate to a full war or was it confined to something like a border dispute?
reply
It was sort of a boarder dispute. Pakistan army sent militants in the winters through mountains and set their base camps on the peaks. After a long struggle, all of them were killed or caught. The most important thing in that war was that they had all the weapons that Pakistan army used to have.
reply
Do you think this conflict will stay similarly limited?
reply
reply
Why would Pakistan let that happen without nuking India?
reply
Because some Pakistani leaders and people also want the end of terrorism from their land.
Yes, there's no doubt about it. Pakistan knows it doesn't stand a chance against India. And the world knows Pakistan shelters terrorism.
reply