this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
284 points (96.1% liked)
World News
32532 readers
884 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it would be much, much worse than that. Nuking a country is a declaration of war and an unprecedented violation of the post-WW2 norms that have prevented global nuclear armageddon. If the nuked country is in NATO, then NATO will absolutely go to war. That's the whole point of NATO. NATO would probably not start with nuclear retaliation, but India would get invaded and/or be forced to capitulate. It would be like Japan after WW2. India would be forced to give up its nukes. Modi and other leaders would be tried as war criminals. Significant adjustments to the Indian constitution would be made. Permanent NATO bases would be established in India. Within a couple of years, India would be allowed to hold elections and self-govern again as a non-nuclear NATO ally, which would both protect it from Pakistan or China and make it entirely dependent on NATO for that protection.
I'm surprised the other person is downplaying the consequences of a nuclear strike. If they actually followed through with this then India would be glass in thirty minutes
I simply disagree. Canada has no nukes of our own so in order to "glass" India, one of the other nuclear powers would have to take that step which then opens them up for retaliation. I just don't know if I trust the commitment of other NATO countries to commit that hard.
Think about it, if India nuked Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely attempt to nuke anyone else that attempts to punish them for that. Now if you're a NATO country other than Canada, are you willing to get yourself nuked as well? I just don't know if anyone else would put themselves in that position.
The reality of the situation is that India would never do something so crazy so it's pointless to speculate about what the response would be.
The US would retaliate before the nuke even landed in Canada. The Monroe doctrine is still in effect.
Lol the US will invade not because they are our ally, but because they believe they are the only ones that are allowed to attack Canada.
Nah - they’d retaliate (not necessarily nuclear) as they don’t like nukes in their part of the world.
This is assuming the subs could fire their nukes, that the rockets would go where intended and the nukes not being intercepted.
Recent events shows that there’s a difference between testing weapons in controlled environments and using them for real.
Great response. I think everything you said is essentially the promise that NATO makes, but as I said to another poster, if India is going to nuke Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely nuke anyone that attacks them. Canada has no nukes of our own, so we couldn't directly retaliate. Now if you're the leader of another NATO country, are you going to risk getting nuked for the sake of NATO? I just don't think anyone else would be willing to step up like that when the shit hits the fan. Think about it... are you willing to risk getting your country nuked for NATO? I just don't know.
Good point, but the number of countries sanctioning India would definitely far exceed the number that would retaliate militarily against them. Non-NATO countries would join in on sanctions but would not join the fight, so there would simply be too many sanction targets to retaliate against.
I'm Canadian so I've been considering this from the viewpoint of the one who got attacked. I'm really having trouble believing my friends (other NATO countries) would put their necks out on the line, and I think they would be more cautious in the face of their own nuclear destruction.