[MichaelMoser123]

The bad news: there is some real potential for escalation due to the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/indias-water...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty

Wasn't there something in the intro of "Mad Max fury road" about water wars?

[niemandhier]

This is probably the only real dangerous point at the moment.

Neither side gains to win much from a conflict, but should India really tamper with the water supply I hope they consult their economists first. Otherwise Pakistan has little choice but instantly commit to a full war.

The reason:

A significant amount of the food produced in Pakistan directly depends on the water from the river Indus. Even a moderate water supply reduction would lead to a loss of around 10% of the harvest.

That does not sound like much, BUT economically food is a commodity with low 'elasticity', meaning demand does not really go down with reduced supply. The result would therefore be a doubling of food prices.

In a country where people have little dispensable income, that means wide spread famine.

By all measures India is the more powerful state, but as Ukraine demonstrates: Desperation can make up for a lot of disadvantage.

[int_19h]

> Neither side gains to win much from a conflict,

If you mean people as a whole, sure. But it's not people who decide, it's the governments. And war is a tried and true measure for authoritarians of all stripes to use as an excuse to consolidate their power and rally the public. Because, well, it works - so long as you're on the winning side. But, given the history of Indo-Pak wars, I could see why the Indian government might believe that they'll win any open military confrontation that their actions may provoke.

[roncesvalles]

>Even a moderate water supply reduction would lead to a loss of around 10% of the harvest.

If that's the case then the die is already cast. Early in the conflict, India released too much water on the Chenub too early for the season as a way to punish Pakistan. The quantity of water was such that Pakistan had no choice but to let it run off to the sea. This now means that the upstream Indian reservoir will not have enough water to release during regular season where coordinated releases ensure farmers have an uninterrupted supply during certain critical time periods.

[Tade0]

Ukraine was desperate in 2014, when the Green Men arrived. In 2022 they were already anticipating an invasion, just didn't know when exactly it would occur.

By 2020 they already had Bayraktars and Javelins:

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/ukraine-to-buy-5...

[sdsd]

>By all measures India is the more powerful state, but as Ukraine demonstrates: Desperation can make up for a lot of disadvantage.

The question is whether China would prop up Pakistan like NATO did for Ukraine

[alephnerd]

Overstated. There isn't any long term locking capabilities on most rivers under the IWT.

The only one India is messing with is the Chenab, and only because it messes up Pakistan's Rice and Sugar exports (major forex provider for Pakistan, and the supply chain is heavily owned by Pakistan's MilBus). Kharif sowing season ends in a couple weeks so messing with the Chenab for 3-4 weeks is enough to destroy the rice harvest in Northeast Punjab.

I recommend reading Ayesha Siddiqui's "Military Inc" to understand the Pakistani army (she was forced into exile because of the book), and "Army and Nation" by Steven Wilkinson to understand India's army.

[MichaelMoser123]

I hope you are right, however:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty#Suspension

Following the suspension of the treaty, India significantly reduced the flow of water through the Chenab River, which crosses into Pakistan. Pakistani authorities claimed a 90% drop in water supply and accused India of choking the river’s flow. India also initiated new hydroelectric projects and began constructing dams on the western rivers, actions previously constrained under the treaty.[125][126][127]

Pakistan has reportedly warned that any attempt by India to disrupt the flow of water from shared rivers could be considered an act of war, and would attack India with nuclear weapons.[128]

[mayama]

> Overstated. There isn't any long term locking capabilities on most rivers under the IWT.

India could build water channel, in style of China's South North water transfer project in less than half decade. Huge dams aren't really needed for just diversion, if India is really serious about it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there is some real potential for escalation due to the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty

Neither side wants peace. But neither side wants to commit military manoeuvre that secures strategic aims. So we get this defence sale wet dream of a forever war instead.

[screye]

India wants peace. A peaceful India threatens Pakistan's entire existence as a military state. Therefore, Pakistan keeps instigating with outrageously cruel terrorist attacks.

There are no strategic goals here. Either side may recover some vantage points high up in the Himalayas. But that's about it.

[alephnerd]

Pretty much. It isn't worth it for either India or Pakistan at the macro level, and intra-elite factionalism would strike well before anyone could commit to a sustained conflict.

And partners like KSA and UAE would come down hard if this became an extended conflict.

[kumarvvr]

> Neither side wants peace

Really? How do you know. Most Indians don't care about what happens to Pakistan or its people.

The moment Pakistan's military stops its terror funding and support activities, India will not care whether it Pakistan lives or dies.

[cute_boi]

I don't know about India, but Pakistan definitely don't want peace. They are nurturing terrorist eg. Osama. I guess whole world should stand against Pakistan.

[alganet]

Fury Road could be seen as a reverse adaptation sequel of "Lolita" though.

The end of Lolita (old guy on a road, frustrated, goes off path) fits with the Furiosa taking a detour.

The roles are reversed. The young girl leaves in triumph (opposed to: the old guy leaves in frustration) and the old guy goes after her (opposed to: the young girl doesn't care about him leaving).

It could be just the skeleton of the story though.

Water is unobtanium of their scenic universe. In that movie perspective, it's related to healthy reproduction (healthy babies!), most likely cultural and not genetic.

As any work of art, it is subject to many interpretations. Not everything is a cue. But some cues exist in fact. Contrary to the meme swarm, you can't turn those ideas so quickly into what you want, otherwise it fails to connect to a sense of cultural continuity.

[alganet]

If you saw the cultural continuity, you can them jump to "Man On The High Castle" where the former Minister of Culture of Japan travels universes temporarily, revealing a drawer with banned books. Amongst them, Lolita.

The old Minister represents an aged cultural interpretation of a nation (not exactly Japan, but what is perceived to be the form of Imperial Japan if it has won WWII).

After seeing it, the character is called out by his son, before quickly returning back to the war universe.