Or would "we" find ways to sell military equipment to both sides just for profit?
2007-12-29 03:48:31 · 11 answers · asked by topink 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Oh of course the US would sell weapons to both sides, that's a given.
But the US would probably try to not take a stance. They can't be seen to chastise Pakistan, what with their co-operation being essential to the "war on terror" - but equally India is the world's most populous democracy, you couldn't even claim to fight for freedom and yet be against India.
2007-12-29 03:54:54 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would actually be more concerned about what the Russians and Chinese would do then the US. India has actually been pretty well armed by many countries including very much by the Russians and the Chinese do not care for the Indians and would not want them controlling Pakistan which they had a good relationship with prior to 9/11. The US would stay out of it and probably do minimal weapons sales to either because most the weaponry is still based on Soviet designs and ammunition.
2007-12-29 12:11:22 · answer #2 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They go to point of nuclear war I would support India. That is because most Indians I have met are Hindu. I don't understand their religion but they are a lot more reasonable than Muslims. Heck, over there they kill each other, here they work side by side in the same store......Explain it to me. besides supporting India would go a long way to keeping the USSR or whats left of it out..... I think in a situation like that pragmatism is the best solution.....
2007-12-29 12:05:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
India could take Pakistan in like one day. All they have to do is send all their troops to rush attack Pakistan haha they might lose a lot of troops yes but in the end the Paki's will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of the Indian troops.
2007-12-29 11:57:12 · answer #4 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As in the past when tempers have flared between these two powers, the US has placed itself squarely in the middle, and encouraged the use of diplomacy, rather than war.
In the past, this has been successful, but each time it does happen, it's a crapshoot whether or not the US can keep them from killing one another.
2007-12-29 12:06:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we'd probably take the stand of "negotiator".
As I understand it, India has democracy, Pakistan does not, however we still assist Pakistan's people, and Pakistan itself for different reasons. So we'd probably not be in a position to take sides.
2007-12-29 11:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by sophieb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It already happened in 2003 when they threatened each other with pushing the button to blow each other to smithereens and starting the nuclear holocaust. Finally India held up an olive branch -- gave-in, gave-up, caved-in, pulled back, retreated, cried-uncle. why can't we in iraq? we did in Nam and survived!
2007-12-29 13:05:00 · answer #7 · answered by Carl P 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would more than likely pay both of them off to not go to war, and then attempt to mediate.
We have been doing so for years anyway.
2007-12-29 11:58:24 · answer #8 · answered by h h 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the Pentagon would just open the Weapons Cart and deal, yes.
2007-12-29 12:04:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
US would sell arms to both and back an agreement which wasn't too stable
2007-12-29 12:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋