Should India just nuke the Pakis and get it over with?
Pakistan violates ceasefire again
Maybe.
Side Score: 10
|
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
Although this is true, it is also not true. Yes, if we had everyone live at the same density they do in New York City you could fit everyone in a city the size of Texas. However, this does not account for all the space that would still have to be used for farming, energy, water ect. Side: Maybe.
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
Hypothetical Scenario: Two short range nuclear weapons hit Islamabad and the Pakistan retaliates by hitting New Delhi. This causes Pakistan to plunge into Civil War and their nuclear weapons are lost track off. Insurgents, Taliban, and the Iranians flood into the area and add more chaos. The Iranians are successful in stealing some of their nuclear weapons and are able to bring it back home. They attach them to modified SCUD missiles and fire them to Israel. Israel fires back and plunge the entire area into chaos. Oil skyrockets in price and forces a Coalition force into the area to bring peace. Millions die and prevents and idea of Middle East peace for decades to come. Is this what YOU want? Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
1
point
A nuke will not create anything good for either countries. It will result in plenty of bloodshed, hundreds of innocent families dead, and yet another reason for the American government to step in and create another war, the last thing any country needs. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You're forgetting that Pakistan has its own nukes (and had them before India obtained its nukes). MAD is very much in effect in India/Pakistan. You don't start throwing nukes around just over a minor border skirmish, especially when your enemy can throw nukes back at you. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
So what you are saying is that an armed society is a polite society. Sounds like an argument against gun control ;) We should not have gun control because if everyone carried guns people wouldn't start shooting at their neighbor over a minor skirmish because their neighbor can shoot back. MAD would be very much in effect in the U.S. ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Even though I know you're joking, I can't let this go unchallenged. MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It is used in the context of nuclear arms, to state that no one will fire upon each other, for they would also be fired upon: if you destroy another, then you will also be destroyed. So far, it's worked. This idea does not apply to guns. If I shoot someone else, they will not automatically return fire upon me - they'll be dead. Obviously there is a form of retribution, in the form of the justice system, but this is very different from the absolute response that nuclear weapons would incur. And anyway, MAD is ridiculous - it isn't an argument for nuclear weapons, and against disarmament, it's an argument of how nuclear weapons don't necessarily have to be as dangerous as people can think. It does not mean that governments should not disarm - simply that the problems are not as great as they could be, that the importance of disarming is (somewhat) reduced. Side: Maybe.
1
point
|