[nblgbg]

I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi government wants to project strength. They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. So, they targeted some areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). In response, Pakistan claimed to have shot down four Indian aircraft and a drone. However, so far, they haven't provided any pictures or locations to support these claims. Both sides will likely exchange fire along the border, and the situation will eventually calm down. Each side will claim victory in its own way.

[enugu]

> They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction.

This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization remains.

The goal of the attacks would be to make any future terrorist attack an expensive option for the Pakistani military as opposed to something which can be done routinely. There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.

[whatshisface]

>when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks

The mission in Afghanistan was very much to find Bin Laden. It was changed after he escaped.

[lazide]

1) Pakistan is a lot less stable right now than 2019 (as is the world).

2) The putative organization is in Pakistan, and likely supported by the military.

The biggest threat India is doing (IMO) is threatening the water supply. That is getting everyone in Pakistan’s attention.

These strikes are more about managing the local political situation in India, which requires some degree of obvious violent retribution.

[reverendsteveii]

We could have gone after the people who actually did 9/11 but that was a bit of a non-starter. Also I think you're equivocating between multiple interpretations of "the terrorists" when most people absolutely wouldn't draw a distinguishing line between, using 9/11 as an example again, the actual hijackers and Osama bin Laden. There's absolutely no question that any time the phrase "the 9/11 terrorists" is used it means both the actual perpetrators and the people who planned and supported the attack.

[nindalf]

> There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.

There were fewer terrorist attacks, certainly. I'm sure the Indian government would like to believe that the 2019 strike had an effect, but far more likely causes are

- Money. Pakistan's economy has stagnated and the country has lurched from one IMF bailout to the next (2019, 2023, 2024). It got so bad at one point that politicians were asking people to drink less tea so they could conserve foreign currency.

- Covid. Affected everything, but certainly harder to think about waging conflict when such a massive problem is affecting the country.

- Internal political instability, especially when Imran Khan took on the military and lost. The military was actually in danger of losing their primacy for the first time in decades.

- Conflict with the Taliban and Pakistani Taliban. The ISI had nurtured the Taliban to be tame pets and it turned out not to be the case. Crushing these was the highest priority, not least because it made their policy of nurturing terrorists look idiotic.

All of these factors meant Pakistan wasn't and isn't in the best shape to wage war overtly or covertly with India. India's economy has continued to grow, in contrast to Pakistan. The official Indian policy of "benign neglect" towards Pakistan appeared to work well.

I'm sure these attacks will be spun as a success in the future. Safe to say a Bollywood movie dramatising the events is already in the works. But Pakistan's own economic and political problems are far more likely to influence its decisions to engage in this sort of behaviour.

[krisoft]

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war

They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.

[prmph]

They are not going to use nukes.

I always wonder at the people who have this idea that states are going to use nukes on a whim. The taboo against the use of nukes is very strong, so strong that I believe nuclear armed nations would rather wage conventional warfare even at great cost, and consider nukes only in the extreme situation where the very survival of the state is seriously threatened (and even then I'm doubtful nukes would be used). The only other realistic situation where nukes are used is in an accidental scenario.

That is why conventional military strength is still very much important in the world now. The Europeans are finding this out a bit late.

It's also why Putin is a great actor and bluffer. Trust me, he's the last person who would think of using nukes, despite appearances to the contrary. Now, if he were to somehow use nukes on an actual populated area, I believe the western powers would NOT use nukes in retaliation, so it seems like he would have a found a way out of MAD. But, the conventional response (likely a containment rather than an attack on Russia, e.g., a no fly zone and destruction of military assets, with the threat of nuclear retaliation backing it up) would be so strong that the Russia would be effectively neutralized. If they persist in nuking, then all bets are off, WW3 begins, and civilization could end.

[ponector]

No one is going to deploy nukes. They have no use against the troops. To level enemy city? Mass casualties, but would not help to win the modern war.

That's why there was no sense for Ukraine to keep nukes. They should have kept strategic bombers, though.

[stuckinhell]

my worry is the nukes too

[karaterobot]

There aren't a lot of examples of a country being unwilling or unable to fight in a full-scale war, and instead launching nukes at their next door neighbor. I don't think this is part of the playbook, or based on evidence, I think it's coming from anxiety.

[ashoeafoot]

More important ,ever since the multipolar great games resumed , they will have customers for nukes. Trump really was the final nail on deterence reliance ..

[th3iedkid]

Looks like some of the locations were deep within Pakistan and were targeted precision strikes. They have also released video footage of many of the strikes https://idrw.org/indian-airstrikes-target-terror-infrastruct...

[datadrivenangel]

Massive misinformation out there, so be skeptical of anything that flatters anybody.

[aprilthird2021]

I think you're mostly correct. This does mirror the 2019 flare up, and yeah ultimately neither side wants their populace to figure out they're not as strong or prepared as they claim. For Pakistan after squashing the democratically popular leader, they can't afford to appear weak (the only thing they can lean on is strength to explain to the populace why they are better than a democratically elected leader). For India, also, the BJP has been waning in popularity after almost a decade of incumbency, this could be the straw that loses them their major support.

[conradfr]

Yet people died.

[jjude]

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war,

Pakistan has nothing to lose. So there are lots of incentives for Pakistan army to go rogue.

[pm90]

This isn’t how anything works. Both India and Pakistan depend on imported military hardware. Every time they’ve fought each other they’ve been embargoed. So every kind of engagement has an implicit timer before the military literally runs out of munitions to continue any kind of serious war.

[saagarjha]

Pakistan has a population of 250 million people. But, of course, an army can go rogue regardless; they have no need to follow the words of economists (or anyone, really).

[impossiblefork]

Pakistan has everything to lose. They are totally dependent on India for reliable water supply, i.e. for getting something other thana drought-flood cycle.

Military action is only going to lead to India being less willing to give them an even supply. They are totally dependent on keeping India happy, and now of course, they've failed to do that by allowing these recent murders.

[conradfr]

Pakistan is irrelevant, what do the people in charge have to lose (or win)?

[Guptos]

I hope this is true

[tonyhart7]

so its saving face attack??? idk about that

[pokstad]

Thanks for stating these forecasts so authoritatively. Or maybe we should admit this is uncharted waters and we shouldn't downplay what is possible?

[tomjen3]

Its not the first time these two have been at war.

[ivape]

It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes.

I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.

[roenxi]

These are actually well charted waters - people are shooting at each other and some fairly high percentage of the time everything calms down but the rest of the time it escalates crazily with both sides losing control. Situation as old as time, long rich history of provocative military action.

I observe from time to time that Moscow appears to be under fire from the occasional US-sponsored attack for example. So far, so good. Most of the time things don't go terribly wrong, just the worst case scenarios here are quite grim. The India-Pakistan situation is probably a bit safer because anything catastrophic is likely to just kill millions/billions of people in India and Pakistan instead of an entire hemisphere of carnage.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Geopolitics can remain irrational longer than you can remain alive.

[arp242]

And many things didn't come to pass. The entire business between Israel and Iran from last year springs to mind (also recall that many feared the Bush administration would seek war with Iran, which never happened). The Cuban missile crisis was resolved, and there was no nuclear war in general during the Cold War. etc. etc.

In the end this is just information-free hand-waving which says nothing about the current situation.

[graemep]

> What possible reason would Putin have for invading Ukraine?

He said he would, and what would trigger the decision at least as early as 2008.

[lwo32k]

Too simplistic. Its also about preventing fanatics from taking control of Nukes or the military.

We already know what happens when Islamic fanatics take over the army in Afghanistan/Iran/Lebanon/Gaza.

If the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt (and they did win the elections) instead of a US propped up Military Dictatorship that would just add another layer of chaos to the middle east.

Its not black and white. Plus all sides make mistakes cause the problem is way above everyones pay grade.

[aprilthird2021]

There isn't proof that this terrorist attack was directed by Pakistan. The terrorists themselves haven't been caught. India also supports terrorists in Pakistan (like the BLA who took hostages on a train a few months back), allegedly.

There's no morally superior actor here, unfortunately.

EDIT: There are many other strange things about the parent comment like why are you upset about the word "militant" instead of "terrorist"? They are functionally synonyms. What militant group isn't a terrorist group? And why is it opposite calling the BJP Hindu nationalist? It is a term they themselves coined and use to describe themselves??

EDIT 2: the original commenter is using a very cleverly edited clip from a different time period to support his claims. But watch the full clip and judge for yourselves. He is clearly referring to training the Afghan Mujahideen 3 decades ago, who the US also supported in the Soviet-Afghan War: https://youtube.com/shorts/lkO8fR4vlgA

[JumpCrisscross]

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested

Proxy war between U.S. and China. We’re moving the naval assets that were bombing the Houthis. India seizing Pakistan-administered Kashmir cuts Islamabad off from China.

[postingawayonhn]

The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).

[sandspar]

The Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's.