Below points are clear from my previous questions:

1) There is less of a chance for another world war.

2) The leadership of both India and Pakistan know that if a nuclear exchange happens it will be disastrous for them and the world. Nobody on either side wants to try and survive nationally in the event of a nuclear war and the following nuclear winter.

3) Minor conventional conflicts combined with government funded terrorism is allowed.


1) Pakistan knows that in a conventional war India will defeat them as in previous wars. They fight the Indian govt. via proxy wars (terrorism) in India.

2) Every country has limit to tolerate these activities. After some big terrorist activity India decided to take action and to attack various terrorist camps at Pakistan land near Indian Border, also India get fully involved in US supportive anti terrorist activities in various countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq etc.

3) These actions taken from Indian Side makes Situation very tensed at Pakistani side and they try to counter every such activity on there land.

4) Pakistan at last ask China to help in this situation as china is Pakistan natural Ally in several field. As Expected China will warn India to stop such Anti Terrorist Activities Immediately, otherwise ready to face the consequences.

5) India is not in Position to face conflict at two Front with two different Nations.

I need Opinions on Below Points Specially:

1) US Point of View on situation as Anti Terrorist activities are supported by them.

2) What are the possible Actions would be taken by these countries ?


1) No compromises which could cause a loss in national pride for either side while Making a middle way.

  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm, I think this is a little off-topic. As it's about real-life future politics, but I'm not sure. $\endgroup$ – DonyorM Apr 6 '15 at 9:04
  • $\begingroup$ @DonyorM No no its not.. please check previous Linked questions $\endgroup$ – Explorer Apr 6 '15 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I see now. You're good, $\endgroup$ – DonyorM Apr 6 '15 at 9:10
  • $\begingroup$ Might be idea generation? $\endgroup$ – JDSweetBeat Apr 6 '15 at 12:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I edited this and improved grammar. Make sure I didn't change your meaning. $\endgroup$ – JDSweetBeat Apr 6 '15 at 17:57

I think the real situation is far more complex than the simplicity that you are talking here. Remember, the US actively lists Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror and although Pakistan is a united entity, there is much in their territory that they don't have much influence over (especially terrorist elements). Also of note...the Western world seems to have a shorter view on history...if we go back to the 80's, the elements of Pakistan that we now list as terrorists were being trained and armed by the American military (Pakistani's will list this period of time as when the major criminal elements entered Pakistan and took up shop). More recently, the US has heavily funded the counter to the people that they were funding in the 80's. In any event, Pakistan is at the core of the Afghanistan mission and the larger 'war or terror' efforts.

As Henry Kissinger says "American has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests". In this case, it's interests are heavily stuck between long standing relations with India and it's newer counter-terrorism efforts within Pakistan. The newer relations with Pakistan aren't strong (read up on Salala if you need an example), and they are strained enough without an India-Pakistan escalation.

My guess on the US angle:

India - The US will welcome an increased Indian presence in the anti-terrorism spectrum, however they will want India to join the international forces (Nato) and warn against unilateral efforts (IE, India joins the NATO forces involved and allows NATO to make the calls where to attack...it will discourage India from making strikes on Pakistani territory).

Pakistan - The US will try to highlight the elements making the terror attacks as separate interests from Pakistan and pressure Pakistan to control this element (not unlike what's currently going on with the Afghan / Pakistan border). Of course, this makes Pakistan look weak (like it can't control it's own people) and will put the US and Pakistan at odds once again. The US will put pressure on Pakistan to allow NATO onto it's territory to address these terrorist activities, and the political dance continues.

I'm not sure if I agree with your take on China's stance on India...as much as India stands to lose here, China stands to loose huge as well. In 2008 the two leaders of India and China set a goal to increase trade between the two nations from 74 billion to around 100 billion...heavily imbalanced favoring China of course. This does include defence and military cooperation as well. This trade relation is starting to approach the US - China volumes and it's not much of a stretch to suggest that India - China trade could easily become the largest trade volumes between two countries. As much as it's easy to say that China is Pakistan's 'natural ally', China stands to devastate it's economy in telling India to 'face the consequences'. Why would China risk an economic dive bomb for Pakistan?

I'd suggest that China would also adopt a similar approach as the US, except be more likely to exert some influence over Pakistan. They will likely try to highlight the 'big terrorist activity' in India comes from elements outside of the Pakistani government as well.

Although China and US have very different reasons, diffusing a pakistani-india conflict is in both of their interests and I'd think you'd actually see some cooperation between the US and China in attempting to diffuse this conflict.


Obviously the US will step in to fight the terrorists as US will fear it spreading into America. China might try to bluff India into submission, but in reality the Chinese have been trying to gain a positive reputation throughout the world. I doubt that China will get militarily involved on the terrorist side.

The most they would do is ban trade with India, but that shouldn't have any effect because India will have our backing and they are industrializing on a massive scale already. If China banned American goods we would simply trade with India doubly to make a point. Labels will read "made in India" more than "made in China," big whoop. The world economy would take another turn for the worse, but hey, hasn't it been doing that since the 80's?

With the Pakistani government and Chinese supporting the terrorists secretly they will have access to Chinese biological weapons and could use them on India and the west.

Why isn't India ready to face China and Pakistan in full fledged conventional war if it came to it? India could simply borrow a few pages from China's own book and draft a few million guys, and sending them in to swarm over Pakistan. They might even (long shot) be able to provide basic weapons to all those guys if they drop the minimum quality of weapons for their army and use old model guns.

Furthermore, if they have full US cooperation they would have our considerable arsenal and military at their disposal. Need air control? Call in the US Aircraft carriers in the area to provide three key things:

  • naval bombardment of the enemy

  • massive support fleets to protect against amphibious landings

  • a decent Air Force combined with their own to match or even outmatch China's own air forces.

  • $\begingroup$ I think, given that China is starting to have problems of its own with Islamists in some of its territories, it would be fairly unlikely that China would actively support Pakistan. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Apr 6 '15 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf The United States is having problems, but so far we have been actively fighting Islamic extremists pretty successfully. A guy in my town got arrested for handing out ISIS recruitment flyers....... I think if Pakistan is China's ally, then China would at least send troops to defend them if not to invade India. That would definitely increase China's popularity among the Muslim nations considering India is viewed as a westernized country. $\endgroup$ – JDSweetBeat Apr 6 '15 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ Since any response other that "yeah, sure" would probably cause this to degenerate into a discussion of contemporary geopolitics, I'll leave it at that. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Apr 7 '15 at 3:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.