lsbskins for President! Vote now!

[Senor Hoint]

Said Neville Chamberlain...

Okay, you're right. Iran is literally the exact same thing as Nazi Germany.

[truthreality]

This could happen in the event of an exchange between India and Pakistan, two countries who have begun the second cold war.

This is complete propaganda.

[lsbskins1]

Sorry, we were talking about your electability. If you advocate the immediate bombing of Iran you may get those negatives up. "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" as John McCain famously sang in a moment of Freudian humor could be a catchy campaign slogan.

Just trying to help.

Oh, now I am beginning to insult the electorate. I am, as I suspected, a horrible politician.

But, I think I opt for this for my campaign theme:

Stuck In The Middle With You - Stealers Wheel - YouTube

Or, is that a bad choice?

[Thanatos]

I voted yes without even reading the details of your platform.

This is complete propaganda.

I'm torn between requesting more information and respecting skins' request that this not be an Iran thread.

[lsbskins1]

I'm torn between requesting more information and respecting skins' request that this not be an Iran thread.

Oh, what the fuck. You birth a baby and you send it out into the world and it finds its own life's path...

[Yarn]

I doubt India would go to war with Pakistan unless Pakistan launches an attack on India. India is a predominately Hindu country and is notorious for being passive when it comes to war.

Pakistan only began its own nuclear weapons program after India detonated its first atomic bomb. India refuses to put the question of Kashmir up for referendum because it knows that the people of Kashmir would vote overwhelmingly to join Pakistan because they are mostly Muslim.

[Yarn]

This is complete propaganda.

It is not propaganda that there is an arms race of nuclear and conventional arms between Pakistan and India. Nor do I see any reason to dismiss the scientific studies that claim an exchange between them could propel enough aersols into the atmosphere as to cause a nuclear winter that would threaten the lives of a billion people with starvation. These are two countries with a history of conflict one another, which are both heavily overpopulated, which share the Indus river, and which face the possibility of there being far less water to go around in the future in the event that the Western Himalayan glaciers melt completely away due to global warming.

Nor is deliberate conflict even necessarily the greatest danger. Besides the Cuban missile crisis, the close calls during the Cold War were mostly due to technical errors. At one point in the 70s, the US sent nuclear armed planes hurling towards Russia and was preparing for an imminent all out missile strike because we thought we detected an all out attack coming our way from Russia. In the nick of time we discovered that somone had put a testing tape into the detection system by accident, and that what we though was a Russian attack was actually just a training simulation. Something similar to this happened to the Russians during the 80s. We are damned lucky to be alive. As tensions are far far lower now, we would probably be more skeptical with our equipment now, but something like this could still happen between us and Russia or China. The entire world could end in less than an hour and almost no one would understand why. An exchange between the US and Russia would vaporize most of us and produce a nuclear winter that would reduce global temperatures by more than 5 degrees celsius and last a decade.

I don't care how rational an actor you are: mistakes are bound to happen.

[lsbskins1]

It is not propaganda that there is an arms race of nuclear and conventional arms between Pakistan and India. Nor do I see any reason to dismiss the scientific studies that claim an exchange between them could propel enough aersols into the atmosphere as to cause a nuclear winter that would threaten the lives of a billion people with starvation. These are two countries with a history of conflict one another, which are both heavily overpopulated, which share the Indus river, and which face the possibility of there being far less water to go around in the future in the event that the Western Himalayan glaciers melt completely away due to global warming.

Nor is deliberate conflict even necessarily the greatest danger. Besides the Cuban missile crisis, the close calls during the Cold War were mostly due to technical errors. At one point in the 70s, the US sent nuclear armed planes hurling towards Russia and was preparing for an imminent all out missile strike because we thought we detected an all out attack coming our way from Russia. In the nick of time we discovered that somone had put a testing tape into the detection system by accident, and that what we though was a Russian attack was actually just a training simulation. Something similar to this happened to the Russians during the 80s. We are damned lucky to be alive. As tensions are far far lower now, we would probably be more skeptical with our equipment now, but something like this could still happen between us and Russia or China. The entire world could end in less than an hour and almost no one would understand why.

I don't care how rational an actor you are: mistakes are bound to happen.

I don't mean to be flippant but I just need to make a very salient point: if I deceided to fling my body in front of a fast moving train, the results to my person would be, without scientific doubt, devastating. It still matters if I am likely to do it, no matter how undeniable the results would be if I did it. And I hate to tell you this, but the genie is out of the bottle. A devastating chain of events could happen between the US and Russia to this day. We don't run around shouting that the end of the world is coming and we ought to play brinkmanship games to either force it or stop it absolutely because...the genie is out of the bottle and there are no longer any garuntees that a nuclear holocaust won't happen. It could happen in a power plant. The genie is out of the bottle. The rational course is to be rational and NOT try to force compliance through brinkmanship games.

[Yarn]

We can't stop nations that already have nukes because they would use them if we attacked them. We can stop nations that don't have them yet. Therefore, we can prevent the problem from getting worse. The genie is out of the bottle in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. It is not out of the bottle in Iran, but it will be soon if we don't stop them. The more nations that have nukes, the sooner and more frequently they will be used.

[lsbskins1]

We can't stop nations that already have nukes because they would use them if we attacked them. We can stop nations that don't have them yet. Therefore, we can prevent the problem from getting worse. The genie is out of the bottle in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. It is not out of the bottle in Iran, but it will be soon if we don't stop them.

The question is not should we stop them, the question is what is the best method for stopping them. As has been stated by others and I hope made clear by me, I think the best road to that end is regeim change. You significantly damage that goal by attack and unleash other horrors that make the international situation much more precarious for the US. I do not believe the ends desired will be acheived by attacks. If the situation should change, if events created a different reality and an attack became the best and an actually viable solution to the problem, then I would not preclude attacks. That situation does not exist, in my opinion, now. And, I believe, if a situation existed that made attacks necessary and viable, it would be obvious and the necessary support to make the attacks not an example of winning the battle and losing the war would be there.

[truthreality]

Pakistan only began its own nuclear weapons program after India detonated its first atomic bomb.

Yeh. A radical backwards terrorist Islamic country seeks to attain nuclear weapons in order to compete with a peaceful secular Democracy that is near by and claims land that doesn't belong to them. Where have I heard that before? (Iran/Palestine and Israel).

India's growing economy, strategic location, friendly foreign policy and large and vibrant diaspora has won it more allies than enemies.

India refuses to put the question of Kashmir up for referendum because it knows that the people of Kashmir would vote overwhelmingly to join Pakistan because they are mostly Muslim.

Muslims invaded and conquered India between the 13th to 16th century. There is no reason why the land belongs to them. The Muslims wanted their own country and India let them have their own country. There is no reason why they have any right to claim ownership over Kashmir. Pakistan wanted ownership over Bangladesh but India fought for Bangladesh's independence. Your support for Pakistan is absurd. Pakistan keeps bombing India and Kashmir.

[truthreality]

It is not propaganda that there is an arms race of nuclear and conventional arms between Pakistan and India. Nor do I see any reason to dismiss the scientific studies that claim an exchange between them could propel enough aersols into the atmosphere as to cause a nuclear winter that would threaten the lives of a billion people with starvation. These are two countries with a history of conflict one another, which are both heavily overpopulated, which share the Indus river, and which face the possibility of there being far less water to go around in the future in the event that the Western Himalayan glaciers melt completely away due to global warming.

Nor is deliberate conflict even necessarily the greatest danger. Besides the Cuban missile crisis, the close calls during the Cold War were mostly due to technical errors. At one point in the 70s, the US sent nuclear armed planes hurling towards Russia and was preparing for an imminent all out missile strike because we thought we detected an all out attack coming our way from Russia. In the nick of time we discovered that somone had put a testing tape into the detection system by accident, and that what we though was a Russian attack was actually just a training simulation. Something similar to this happened to the Russians during the 80s. We are damned lucky to be alive. As tensions are far far lower now, we would probably be more skeptical with our equipment now, but something like this could still happen between us and Russia or China. The entire world could end in less than an hour and almost no one would understand why. An exchange between the US and Russia would vaporize most of us and produce a nuclear winter that would reduce global temperatures by more than 5 degrees celsius and last a decade.

I don't care how rational an actor you are: mistakes are bound to happen.

India has no intention of going to war with Pakistan or any country.