## Thursday, September 29, 2016 ... /////

### Aspects of the Indian-Pakistani (so far) miniwar

The British Empire has been in charge of the British India for some time. In 1947, that territory declared their independence and new countries, Pakistan and India, were created. Pakistan is some 98% Islamic. India is mostly Hinduist (Buddhism is below 1% these days) and only 15% Islamist (Christianity is over 2%, the third largest religion there). However, you may see that India is still the by far more diverse country among the two.

I would surely say that India is the more "politically Western" country among the two. You could say that it's "ironic" given the Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Western suit and "Aryan" skin color on the picture above with the visually darker and more folklore-dressed Indian prime minister Modi. But India's fights against the Islamic terrorists basically coincide with the logic of similar fights that sensible Western countries have to wage.

There have been three conflicts between India and Pakistan. Most of the conflicts are linked to the most disputed part of the border, inside Kashmir. Kashmir is a territory in the Northern part of the Pakistani-Indian border, a cool region adjacent to the Himalayas. Both countries claim all of it. In practice, it's divided to two similarly large parts by the de facto (but internationally unrecognized) border, the so-called "Line of Control" (LoC). That's where the newest tension is concentrated, too.

Some Pakistani Islamic terrorists have killed some Indians – a similar terrorist attack took place in 2008 or so. The Pakistani government doesn't necessarily organize these terrorist attacks. But it tolerates the terrorists much more than it should, to say the least. Prime minister Modi's India decided to switch to a more assertive approach.

They performed surgical strikes against some terrorists' technology near the LoC, see e.g. the India Times. That wouldn't be new – they have probably done so many times in recent decades. But what's new is that the surgical attacks were officially announced by the Indian government. Modi and pals tell the world that they think that it was the right thing to do and there's nothing to be ashamed of. What is the reaction of the Pakistan's powerful folks? Well, the Pakistani army denies any surgical strikes.

You know, many Westerners – including politicians – love the attitude of victimhood. Many of our compatriots love to whine all the time. We're the victims, feminist bitches and reverse racists whine all the time, while hurting many other people almost as strongly as the Nazis did. And many other Westerners claim that they have been harmed in one way or another way. Well, one must understand that this whining approach isn't the only possible one. People tend to behave differently in different parts of the world – and they did behave differently in the past, too.

In fact, it seems obvious to me that in all the self-confident Islamic countries – I am talking primarily about Pakistan and Iran now – defiance is much more widespread. The officials simply present their country and its army as an unbreakable giant. They don't really try to inflate the casualties caused by the Indians, in order to paint the Indians as more evil than they are – just like the left-wing activists in the U.S. are employing persistent lies to demonize Trump or Putin or anyone like that. Instead, the Pakistani readers may read articles boasting that 14 Indian soldiers were killed by the Pakistani army. Don't overlook all the details: the "foes" are just "individual soldiers" while the force that (allegedly) killed them is the giant and impressive "army" of ours.

The Pakistani press is annoying and seems "clearly" less trustworthy to me than the Indian press. They claim that India has made no surgical attacks. But they don't really cover their "alternative" story. So what has actually happened, Allah's comrades? Isn't it strange that you only say what hasn't happened but you don't tell us what has happened? Also, I am annoyed by the omnipresent claims about "martyrdom". Two Pakistani soldiers were turned into martyrs etc. Give me a break. Some employees in a risky occupation were just on a wrong place at a wrong time and failed in methods to protect their lives, so their life functions were stopped. What's so impressive about it that makes the official press worship the people whose only achievement was to be killed while waiting to kill others? And if it is so cool in the Islamic countries to be killed, why don't they invade India etc. immediately and get killed as martyrs? This Islamic cult of death is sick.

At the same moment, Pakistan claims to be "patient", too. The conflict has a diplomatic portion, too, e.g. exchanges in the United Nations, where the accusations and victimhood is somewhat more widespread because the target audience of these exchanges are primarily the Western sissies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, traitor John Kerry has squarely sided with the Islamic terrorists and claimed that the terror attacks were no justification for the strike (slighty) on the Pakistani territory. He "warned" India. Wow. Needless to say, the Indian operations in Pakistan are fully analogous to the U.S. operations against the Afghani terrorists after 9/11.

The conflict may fade away. It may grow, too. I was thinking about the best model for the growth dynamics of such conflicts. I think that the intensity of the conflict – perhaps the number of casualties per week – behaves as (in a certain idealization)$\frac{dN}{dt} = C \cdot \exp [R(t)]$ where $R(t)$ is a random walk function of time (which depends on a parameter, a time scale $t_0$), with the estimate $|R(t)|=O(\sqrt{t/t_0})$. In other words, the intensity may exponentially grow or exponentially fade away, with comparable odds. Needless to say, with this idealization, the probability that the conflict will kill all Indians and Pakistani folks in some logarithmically short time is about 50% – depending on whether $R(t)$ drifts towards positive or negative values. Those 50% may be too much so maybe $R(t)$ should be replaced by $R(t)-At$.

Note that only dozens of troops are being killed now; it's far to the hundreds of millions, even on the logarithmic scale. The random walk would need to go for a while if the conflict is supposed to become really serious geopolitically.

I had a Twitter exchange with a person claiming that the war between these two countries will "destroy the world" (much like Chernobyl, she or he wrote). So I kindly pointed out that they have some 100+100 warheads which is very far from being able to "destroy the world" (and I explained the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone and the conditions for life over there). The person quickly "accused" me of being conservative. You may see that a certain "environmentalist" fanaticism and detachment from reality is inseparable from the left-wing politics. Being staunchly left-wing and being a hopeless and complete imbecile are very close to equivalent adjectives, at least in similar discussions.

If you speculate about the nuclear conflict, it's a good idea to know something about the two countries' nuclear arsenals. No numbers are known quite accurately. But India has no highly enriched uranium – Pakistan has lots of it. On the other hand, India has more than 3 times greater pile of plutonium. Both countries have slightly more than 100 nuclear warheads+weapons at this moment. But Pakistan could increase it to 300 while India only to 200. However, Indian weapons' (average etc.) range is longer than the Pakistani and there are many other differences.

On the other hand, India's territory is much greater, so Pakistan may need many more weapons if it wanted to carpet bomb India. The population of India is over 1 billion but Pakistan's is less than 0.2 billion. India's army is the second largest one in the world, Pakistan's is the sixth one.

I would like to see all of them living in peace – the British supervision above all the local religions and sects was surely helping the peace but it's gone – but it's possible that the outcome will be very different and I don't think that a conflict would be a global catastrophe. Well, I could be wrong, too. An unhinged lunatic and Mohammed's fifth column such as John Kerry equipped with the powers of the U.S. Secretary of State could easily endorse the Pakistani Islamists in their conflict against India. With this "upgrade", one could be seriously worried about the world and every place of it.

Thankfully, we're not there yet and Kerry is very likely to leave in a few months.