Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
For the sake of recap what has happened so far if you are not caught up, because US news isn't making a lot of effort to cover this with significant air time, is there was a terrorist attack from Pakistan killing 28. There was a retaliatory Indian air strike in Pakistan killing 31 that India says was targeted. Pakistan disputes this. Pakistan has struck back with artillery shelling of the Indian side of Kashmir, killing 13.
It is possible because of the mostly targetted nature of the Indian attack that the number of non-combatants killed in each attack has seen a downward trend which is hopeful. But the nature of each stage cannot suggest a deescalating trend. The first attack was not by a state actor. The second attack (India to Pakistan) was an attack by a state actor in another's territory. The third attack (Pakistan to India) was largely indiscriminate, by a state actor, and against the broader population.
Whether or not this becomes a full blown war may depend on some external forces. There are larger immediate neighbors as well as the US, each of which have their own opinion if they want war to happen or not, and things they want from either Pakistan or India. Depending on talks that are no doubt happening, any of the external players (US, China, Russia) may rescind support, express support, or entirely back one of the two parties depending on what they get.
Examples include us wanting India to not trade with Russia. Us wanting Pakistan to reduce trade with China. China surely wanting a belt and road style deal with Pakistan (collateralized debt deal). Russia wants India to double down on BRICS. US wants them to exit it.
Really what this situation does is increase leverage that all three external actors have over both India and Pakistan.
This is why our news media is not running much opinion right now. It's only reporting obligatory facts and sweeping the story under the rug. This is not how media usually runs in the US. Most stories get 90% opinion and 10% facts. So there is definite stalling going on. Because our governments don't know what side we are taking (though probably India), and we don't know our full disposition toward the conflict, degree of support, until back channel negotiations occur. Of course the official stance is we don't know our full disposition until the conflict unfolds depending on the actions either side makes. That's entirely fake and a stalling tactic while our disposition is being resolved by more geo-politically relevant factors.
Hence our news media is mum because they don't know what opinion they are supposed to have yet.
Now we get to the fun part. Predictions of what we think will happen by the end of May.
 | |
|---|
One thing that will never happen is the US will not be supportive of India genociding an entire region in response to a single terrorist attack because India is not Israel.
Whatever happens imagine the smell
For decades it's been the most dangerous border.
Surprising they don't have their opinions already formed in their playbooks. They could ask some A.I. what to do. I'm guessing things are popping off there sooner than planned, and maybe they're hoping it will die down until they really need it. Thus local minor tit-for-tat will suffice to save face and maintain reasonable order.
I've got some optional scenes in my Bittersweet Seeds screenplay where they are orbiting Earth and see a Kashmir nuke resulting in EMP chaos on board to overcome, but these superfluous scenes don't add much to character development, story, or deeper teaching thoughts - other than there is global strife, nuclear threats, and adds obstacles the characters must overcome.
Good analysis.
Makes me wonder if the initial attack was encouraged by an external actor.
Honestly I could see China. That's something I was thinking about. China has the most to gain. Increased arms sales to Pakistan. Cleaner borders for trade via a western route... the road in belt and road. An opportunity to play diplomatic statesman if they play their cards right. They always seem to wish that was a role they could take. There is something unnatural about their leadership's inability to understand human relationships that I think gets in the way. I think China is run by psychopaths with severe personality deficits. Our political system only allows psychopaths that can effectively mask so they tend to know how to communicate with people. China not so much, and their leadership doesn't seem to understand it of course.
But we also need to keep as a possibility that muzzies are just insane and fanatical.
Here is the problem with Occams razor. Occams razor would suggest the last option is it. I don't think it makes sense to compress to one and only one option. If people do that then schemers can get away with anything as long as they set up the possibility of a party with more simple motives. We have a responsibility to have a world view that doesn't allow for infinite exploits by such people. Occams razor is a suggested formalizing of naivety. But also Occams razor can often be self conflicting. It's simple in the specific case to say fanatical terrorists are motivated by fanaticism. But it is simple in the broad case that state actors will scheme to get ahead when others bare the cost of conflict. So if we followed Occams razor blindly we would get contradictory and mutually exclusive world views depending on what we applied Occams razor to first.
So fuck Occams razor. People who believe it are retarded and are unable to consider things that aren't simple. Well guess what, the world isn't simple. Maybe that's a simple high probability thing to believe, that complex world is complex.
I think Occam's razor is fine if it's a theory of probability rather than a statement of fact (i.e. the simplest explanation tends to be correct vs is correct), but yes, it also sometimes seems to presume that the simplest explanation is always obvious, which it often isn't.
Have you heard of Hanlon's razor? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"? Now that one to me sounds like it was cooked up by some psychopaths.
I have a variant of that one. When dealing with people who are expected to be intelligent if things go wrong and benefit them assume intent.
If they are grossly incompetent they shouldn't be in that role anyway. At the very least consistent punishment for bad results will remove motive which you need.
Under that razor you get some conclusions that some people are slow to come to but I still stand by. Covid was intentionally released.