Honor Killings Persist in "Man's World"

[Akhlut]

A question to those advocating the Shep solution: wouldn't it just be easier to just go ahead and kill every man, woman, and child on earth? I mean, hell, even Canada had that guy go berserk on the Greyhound, and there's still a larger percentage of complete whackjobs in America, so, why not just accept the human condition as completely hopeless and do the right thing: sterilize the planet. Since, obviously, all life on earth is going to be vicious, ruthless, and unrelenting in their thirst for suffering of everything else.


Seriously, though, it's not just disgusting and reprehensible to hold to the position that we should KILL KILL KILL KILL the bastards perpetuating this with nukes, but it's hypocritical in the utmost to do that and not look at the rest of humanity and conclude that we shouldn't all be shot in the head. Hell, only 160ish years ago, the most civilized and advanced peoples on the planet had chattel slavery, a system which is even more barbaric than this, yet they've advanced beyond that. The solution to this problem is not through frothing-at-the-mouth BLARGH! KILL 'EM ALL positions advocating slaughter, but, you know, progressive positions and, gasp, diplomacy.

Unfortunately, the current realpolitik "enemy of my enemy" policies and a complete unwillingness to engage in dialogue (at least with regards to the US) are going to let shit like this slide in order to engage in holier-than-thou bluster (toward Iran, for instance) or to get adversaries deemed more important (ignoring shit like this in Pakistan to get some aid from them to get al Qaeda).

[Junghalli]

I didn't say invade, I said destroy. You do understand the difference, yes?

Isn't that sort of like curing the disease by killing the patient? I don't know about you but if I was a woman in one of these hellholes I'd still rather put up with their stone age bullshit than be killed in some glorious genocidal purge. Killing people off seems a remarkably shitty way of going about trying to make their lives better.

[Adrian Laguna]

Even if they didn't, I would imagine there would be massive riots in India resulting in quite a few muslims dead.

Or resulting in the Muslims taking-up arms to defend themselves. The civil situation in India if Pakistan becomes a charred and desolate nuclear wasteland won't be pretty. India's Islamic population is only a minority in relation to the Hindu population, taken by themselves they can be a seizable country in their own right, India actually has more Muslims than Pakistan itself.

[Broomstick]

And in an all-out exchange between the US and Pakistan the US would utterly destroy Pakistan whereas Pakistan would be lucky to get even ONE bomb to our soil. They might bomb and overseas US asset but that's not the same as hitting US soil proper.

Thanks to US deployments to the Middle East, but the large base at Diego Garcia, a Pakistani strike against US assets would likely kill at least 100,000 Americans.

Um... OK, a nation contemplating a nuclear obliteration of another nation of 173,000,000 (give or take a few), but they'll stop because of an additional 100,000 casualties?

I don't think so.

The US was preparing for 1,000,000 US casualties during an invasion of Japan in 1945. You're only talking 1/10 of that. That doesn't mean the US would like to take that many casualties, but if sufficiently motivated might well do so.

Fortunately, again, it has not come to anything of that sort, but you're mistaken if you think a large military isn't willing to lose some of their own in order to acomplish a major objective.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm just pointing out the manpower losses that would be sustained as a result of American nuclear warfare with the state of Pakistan. It should furthermore be noted that these losses represent a large percentage of American mobilized manpower, it would effectively leave the country utterly incapable of projecting power on the ground for a period of at least several months, and likely stretching into a year or two.

There are also considerable materiel losses on the table: tanks, trucks, supply vehicles, aircraft, and the possibility of losing an entire carrier task force (admittedly a dim one, thanks to the AEGIS ships).

I am not saying that the United States would be unwilling to take these losses under any circumstances, but certainly they are not something that can be taken in stride. They would have a tremendous impact in the global strategic situation for the amount of time it takes to rebuild. When the US Armed Forces were contemplating Operation Dowfall, they also had five years of war mobilization to back them up, the same is not true now.

[Saxtonite]

I read this article for International Relations, It was interesting to see the person who represented that area defend it and apparently a LOT of the Pakistan legislature was shocked. Apparently it does vary on region.

And there is nothing really that can be done about that shithole. It has been a shithole for thousands of years and it will remain so for thousands more. .

the guy who wrote this book, The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East (linked http://www.amazon.com/New-Asian-Hemisph ... 1586484664 ) says that Asia is modernizing and eventually Pakistan and the other places in Central Asia, etc would be dragged up.