India vs Pakistan

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
Considering the damage done if both launch nuclear weapons on each other, there's no winners except the rest of the world and Darwin.

QFT ..except the rest of the world wouldn't do so good because of the drifting nuclear fallout. China would really get hit hard.

[Cort Haus]

Both sides suck at cricket atm, but Pakistan is in the more advanced stage of disarray.

So I think India would win, if they were to play each other now. Which they should, because they are both out of the World Cup and with nothing else to do.

[Arrian]

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Both sides suck at cricket atm, but Pakistan is in the more advanced stage of disarray.

So I think India would win, if they were to play each other now. Which they should, because they are both out of the World Cup and with nothing else to do.

Surprised you didn't latch on to this

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


QFT ..except the rest of the world wouldn't do so good because of the drifting nuclear fallout. China would really get hit hard.

I doubt it. There was a great deal of above ground nuclear testing in the 20th century. That testing didn't really hit anybody that hard with fallout.

It's not like south asia is bristling with nukes.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


let me rephrase this for you.

If in any counrty X, that had an ethnic minority Y, numbering P, of whom Q chose to take up arms against country X during a war, Q members of group Y would die.


I suggest this is probably close to true universally, and has little or nothing to do with genocide of an entire group, or the killing of civilians.

Just over 7 million. That's what 5% of a 13% Muslim minority in India looks like. Killing that 5% goes well beyond self-defense.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Just over 7 million. That's what 5% of a 13% Muslim minority in India looks like. Killing that 5% goes well beyond self-defense.

well its probably pretty unrealistic that 5% would take up arms. given that half are women, alot are children, old folks, etc. Even if they werent mainly loyal citizens, its rare an insurgency has anything like that level of participation. But I dont think Aneeshm specified that number.

And yup, 100% casualties is pretty unrealistically high even for a soundly defeated insurgency. But as long as they are killed in combat, and not while trying to surrender, I cant see how its genocide whatever the numbers are.

[Heresson]

Actually, that is what Muhammad did, right? He praised slaughtering Banu Qurayza, because allegedly they, being a part of the ummah or whatever, allied with the enemies during the war.

That is one of biggest arguments against Muhammad and islam. Strange that aneeshm never made a thread about it.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I doubt it. There was a great deal of above ground nucelar testing in the 20th century. That testing didn't really hit anybody that hard with fallout.

Of course, there was that little problem with John Wayne and almost the entire case of The Conquerer dying from cancer after filming near the Nevada testing site.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Of course, there was that little problem with John Wayne and almost the entire case of The Conquerer dying from cancer after filming near the Nevada testing site.

exactly.

thoughts of China being devastated by nuclear exhanges in south asia are clearly exaggeration IMHO.

They'd have a big blip in cancer rates but that would be about the extent of the impact.