[JumpCrisscross]

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested

Proxy war between U.S. and China. We’re moving the naval assets that were bombing the Houthis. India seizing Pakistan-administered Kashmir cuts Islamabad off from China.

[postingawayonhn]

The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).

[kumarvvr]

> Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

By funding a known miliary dictator (Pervez Musharraf), for decades, helping strengthen the military rule in Pakistan.

So much for "spreading democracy"

[hackandthink]

"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s."

"U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions"

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia

[ivell]

In context: The Blood Telegram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

It was an active decision by the US.

[Jtsummers]

Historic policies don't apply to the current administration. It's really anybody's guess at this point what the US would do if this conflict ratchets up significantly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.)

Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.

[tonyhart7]

"US isn't interested in picking sides"

but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"

[smt88]

Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.

[happyopossum]

Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.

[cosmicgadget]

Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.

[smt88]

"No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart"

There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.

[sandspar]

The Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Pakistan-India conflict is orthogonal to America and China's

India is negotiating trade deals and weapons purchases with the West. (Historically, Moscow was its security source.) Pakistan got some F-16s in 2022, but otherwise has been deepending ties with Beijing. It's wild to suggest America's cold war with China is orthogonal to this conflict.

[sandspar]

Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US. The US and China have interests in the area, so maybe I shouldn't have said the word "orthogonal". But the original commenter said a conflict between India and Pakistan would be a "US-China proxy war". Come on. India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading. And neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ask a random Indian in India whether he'd be willing to die for the US

Not how proxy wars work.

> India and Pakistan have enough reasons to hate each other. They don't need America or China's goading

Not how proxy wars work. The backers enable. The proxies fight.

> neither India nor Pakistan would accept their conflict being characterized as a US-China war

This is how proxy wars work. They literally don’t if the proxies realise they’re fighting a foreign war on their homeland.

[air3y]

>This is how proxy wars work. They literally don’t if the proxies realise they’re fighting a foreign war on their homeland.

India and pakistan have contested boundaries and their hostilities doesn't depend on foreign powers. Interestingly, when the hostilities between china and india flared up in 2021, and india moved many divisions from its pakistan border to its chinese border, pakistan didn't change its posturing to put pressure on india. This was acknowledged by indian army during a press briefing. Both so far have never fought against each other for foreign powers, but have fought against each other for their own reasons. So no proxy wars so far.

[JumpCrisscross]

> India and pakistan have contested boundaries and their hostilities doesn't depend on foreign powers

Yes? That’s what lends it proxy war potential. An endemic war. Like, there were actual conflicts in e.g. Vietnam and Afghanistan before they became proxy wars. Those same risk factors are present today.

[random42]

It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US.

Source: I am an Indian.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It’s not a proxy war. Not every world event is about the US

Nobody said as much. The original comment described how this can escalate.

[slt2021]

It is useful for the US to isolate China from Iranian oil resources. Currently Iranian oil can go via Pakistan to China.

Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war.

If some people die on both side it is acceptable for the Us, because these are not Us citizens dying

[maxglute]

CPEC isn't viable energy coordidor yet - no completed oil/gas infra from Iran to Pak to PRC. Which only leaves trucks, and the roads not designed to support 5000+ trucks per day for Irans 1m barrels per day.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Thats how Us operates: exploits old conflicts for its own immediate benefit, like it did with Ukr-Rus war.

This is realpolitik 101, and every powerful society does it. Like, India didn't help sever Bangladesh f/k/a East Pakistan from Islamabad because it was being nice. (I'm not saying every society exploits every old conflict. Just that if you need to do something, you start with extant fault lines. Like, if you're going to war with Nazi Germany you don't sideline the Soviets and British because that's mean or whatnot.)

Also, the problem with Pakistan isn't that its ports could be used to import oil. It's that the ports are being configured for Chinese blue-water operations.

[slt2021]

I can understand seizing opportunities in situations like this, however I cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistans-defence-m...

[JumpCrisscross]

> cannot support instigating and creating these situations in the first place

With all due respect, what you and I support isn’t super relevant to what will happen over the coming weeks.

[lazyeye]

It doesn't matter what it is, or where it's happening in the world, some people will always make it about the US. Always. It's tiresome.

[shadowgovt]

The US is the third largest country on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and controls the currency that other countries denominate their international debt in.

There's very little that happens in the world that does not touch or get touched by the United States. The USA doesn't have much choice in this.