Pakistan-India Nuclear War - What would happen

The current conflict in Kashmir could very well escalate to a nuclear war between Pakistan and India and the dire consequences of such a catastrophe would be global.

India has 400 cities with more than 100,000 people, and by 2025 Pakistan could have an arsenal big enough to attack two-thirds of them; Pakistan has about 60 such dense conurbations and India could react and hit all of them with two weapons each. The expected almost-immediate death toll would be between 50 million and 125 million.

In the journal Science Advances, new research shows that rapidly growing nuclear stockpiles in India and Pakistan could release 16 million to 35 million tons of soot, or black carbon, into the atmosphere if the two countries escalated their standoff into nuclear strikes by 2025. In the event of nuclear war, black carbon's spread across the globe over a matter of weeks would result in the absorption of solar radiation, slashing the sunlight that reaches Earth by 20 to 35 percent. Precipitation and vegetation growth would be reduced by up to 30 percent, and the planet would take more than a decade to recover as the soot would remain in the upper atmosphere for years. Planetary average temperatures will drop by at least 2°C and by as much as 5°C, and for the next 10 years regional temperatures could plummet to levels characteristic of the last Ice Age. Rainfall will diminish by 15% to 30%, and so will the productivity of the oceans, terrestrial forests, grasslands and croplands.

"Such a war would threaten not only the locations where bombs might be targeted but the entire world," said Alan Robock, co-author of the study and a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers.

Derek Johnson, chief executive of the anti-nuclear group Global Zero, tweeted, "You won't see the mushroom clouds, but you can look forward to years of climate disruption, drought, famine, and death."

Owen Brian Toon of the University of Colorado explains, “An India-Pakistan war could double the normal death rate in the world,” Professor Toon said. “This is a war that would have no precedent in human experience.”

Maureen McCue of Physicians for Social Responsibility said in a statement. "The world cannot afford the impacts on public health, the environment and our climate that would result from any use of nuclear weapons. They must be eliminated before they eliminate us."

Easier said than done. These peace groups have helped to bring back to the public attention the horrific consequences of nuclear war. What is needed is to go beyond a moral outcry and to attack the system which creates war. Good intentions will not solve the problem of war. But actions if they are to be effective require more than indignation. It is not enough that behaviour is well motivated: if it is to be effective it must be appropriate. Members of peace organisations need to learn just what is involved in keeping people free from the tyranny of death by war at the hands of nuclear weapons. There is an alternative. Abolish capitalism. If they really care about people and our planet they will want to campaign for socialism. If anti-war movements continue to support capitalism they must be responsible for all the ways in which capitalism develops. The Socialist Party has for a long time explained that nuclear disarmament can only be accomplished when we take the world into our own hands.

It is important to remember that the technology of nuclear weapons is here to stay. You cannot now erase from the human mind and experience the ability to make nuclear weapons, and there can be no doubt that stocks will continue to proliferate under capitalism. What is required is such a degree of international solidarity that workers of all countries are firmly resolved not to support capitalist war. But the anti-nuclear weapon lobby is not working for this. All those NGOs and anti-nuclear weapon groups say that we have this appalling threat hanging over our heads and they do not have time to work for a different society. They are in the position of supporting capitalism but finding the consequences of their own actions repugnant. 

Sincere individuals are swept up by such movements; but these movements have no substance and are not acting with a clear understanding of the nature of the problems. Because they do not understand that workers have no country, but instead have a

common interest with workers of all other countries in taking over the world for themselves, they tend to sweep up the indignation that is felt about war and the nuclear threat and render it sterile by channeling it off in totally futile directions. In this respect they unwittingly act out a political role of stabilising capitalism which goes on as a breeding ground for further wars and renewed international violence. Instead, they must build on the concern and indignation and broaden their horizons. They should not place their faith in governments; that is a sure recipe for disaster and disillusion. We must not make pathetic appeals to governments to do something on our behalf.