Nuclear Jihad?

That more attention isn’t being paid to this by the major news outlets is a scandal and an outrage. At the Washington Times, take a look at this rundown on the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan by Shak Hill:

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the 1947 partition created the two states; two of the three were over Kashmir. None of those wars occurred when either country possessed nuclear weapons.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan addressed the United Nations on Sept. 29 and threatened to change that. Mr. Khan took the 15 minutes of speaking time allotted him and went nearly an hour, using the entire speech to speak of “jihad” over Kashmir and rail against his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Nehendra Modi.

“Jihad” is not a word the world wants to hear from a man atop a self-described Islamic republic that owns more than 100 nuclear weapons.

Read the whole thing. This is the most dangerous issue in the world today.

6 comments… add one
  • Grey Shambler Link

    Rewording that a little: India and Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947, but none since a both acquired nuclear weapons.
    Nukes have probably been the reason for restraint. That’s 67 years now. Jihad seems to mean different things to different people, He wants to raise the specter of total annihilation. That would certainly be new territory.
    I really like the idea of closer relations and trade with India. The more I read about China’s re-education and live organ harvesting camps, the more I think they should be totally isolated. Regardless of the cost to Apple or Boeing.

  • I really like the idea of closer relations and trade with India.

    Closer relations with the India of ten years ago would have been okay. I’m wary of a closer relationship with Hindu nationalist India just as I am wary of our relationship with Israel.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    We have to wait and see. Modi is 69.

    Even Netanyahu is inching his way out the door.

  • steve Link

    I am also leery of India. Besides the religious based nationalism it amy be even more corrupt than China. Pakistan is surely at least as bad and probably Bangladesh too. The whole area is awful. Just for fun look up ship breaking sometime. Concentrated in that area of the world since they have zero regard for environmental impact, even less than China, and thats saying something.

    On topic, I think that has a Hatfields and McCoys aspect that leads the press to not jump on every escalation. Foreign policy writers always identify it as one of, if not THE, areas most likely to have a nuclear war, but they have been saying that for a long time.


  • TarsTarkas Link

    Kashmir should have been allowed to chose between Pakistan and Indian or be allowed to go their own way. The Rajah wanted India, the populace wanted Pakistan. Instead we got an UN intervention (partly as a result of the massacres in Punjab) and division that satisfied nobody. It’s been going on for over 70 years. Until the people of Kashmir in toto get to choose their side, including the ability of individual provinces or districts to secede from the whole of Kashmir, it will continue. Don’t see it happening anytime soon.

  • bob sykes Link

    Both Pakistan and India are members of the various organizations China and Russia are using to integrate Eurasia. It is in their interest to mediate some sort of settlement between the two, especially regarding Kashmir. China and India also have territorial disputes. It will be interesting to see if Putin (the greatest living statesman) can resolve these issues.

Leave a Comment