Cookie Monster

Same exact thing would happen to India with around 30 or 40 nukes. And this isn't even taking into the account the ensuing radiation that would hang over the Indian subcontinent for decades on end. I've read studies that indicated a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India would spread deadly doses of radiation as far as Western Europe depending on the wind patterns. So no, neither country would exist. And even if they did, better pack a bunch of bottled water unless you plan on drinking straight from the local tap which will more likely than not be contaminated with radiation particles as well... I have to wonder, when you think about how many nukes they tested in Nevada, I suspect that fallout would not be as bad as envisoned. Don't get me wrong, it would be bad and have long term effects, but I suspect much of the population would survive and continue to live there, despite the cancer rates and such. Good point, though they were detonating one nuclear weapon at a time. In this case it would be about 100-300 nukes going off at a minimum. The glaciers in Kashmir would pretty much vaporize and that would halt the water supply to much of the Indian subcontinent's water supply (not to mention contaminate it). Living through the nuke blast and its radiation may not be as bad as the radioactive effects will eventually subside, but put those same radiation particles in the water supply that nearly a billion people depend on, or just take away much of the water supply altogether...yeah, not sure how much a country will be left. : Keep dreaming and go back to your geology and physics classes. The only effect would be that you would vaporize your own drinking water supplies.

With the exception of USA and nuclear subs, India still has more modern weapons than Brits, France, Germany have

I luuuuuuv the Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich. best chicken sandwich ever.

Because IN wants a beefier role for its P-8, additional capabilities were added to the P-8, which USN does not want or need. Neptune is the Roman name for the same deity, Poseidon, which is the Greek version. Hence, the name Neptune for the P-8I, the Indian version.

Sure the technical needs of IAF but not the strategic needs of India as a whole. There would be no ToT transfer, no source code sharing, and there would be a permanent US electronic monitoring presence in IAF's potent strike aircraft that basically makes IAF subservient to US's will. India would have no independent policy to follow through. These considerations would outweigh the technical needs of IAF.

Unless USA and Lockheed agrees to share the source code with IAF and forgoes CISMOA, this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. India is pursuing its AMCA program which is supposedly to compete directly with F-35.

The underlying tensions are still there. Just because the hypothetical date has come and gone doesn't mean that it won't happen. As long as you don't resolve the underlying tensions, the possibility remains.

Which is something that the Syrian establishment won't tolerate and could lead to Syria making moves such as counterattacking.

There have been a lot of reports in the Indian media regarding this and great concern in the GoI. The GoI and MoD are expanding the defense capabilities in the Northeast sector and the Himalayan region. They have also created two mountain corps designed to deal with that geographical terrain. So I would not surprised if there is more tension in the days to come.

*sighs* Here's a reading source: http://wu.academia.edu/JoostJongerden/Papers/225543/Dams_and_Politics_in_Turkey_Utilizing_Water_Developing_Conflict Perhaps you can give the author the usual cheap shots that you have undertaken towards me and see how that develops. You have your position. I got my own based on reports and sources I have read over the Internet and newspapers.

I take it that you really haven't interact with many people out in the real world. When it comes to something precious, most logical reasoning goes out of the window. That's one of the first thing I had to learn in the real world of lawyering. You encounter a lot of clients and witnesses who don't really make sound logical reasoning and/or do things that astound human reasoning. You cannot predict human behavior and water rights is one of those something that may cause humans, including leaders to act irrationally. That's my whole point. You are discounting the possibility of a Turkey-Syria conflict saying it is highly improbable. How many times have we heard that one in history and only later to find out that our rational arguments go out of the window. Furthermore, the growing Syrian refugee crisis may compel Turkey to act unilaterally. Therefore, I am not discounting a Turkish-Syria conflict especially when I see an outstanding issue that hasn't been resolve and has the capacity to lead to conflict. Nothing is ever certain in that region It is called being prudent. Perhaps you can learn something from it.

Perhaps US wants to avoid a replay of the precursory events leading up to WWII. After all WWII broke out when Germany and Russia invaded Poland. Perhaps staging a US base in Poland may deter a future WWIII.

yes Turkey has the ability to cut off Syria's water but what I am saying is that Turkey might see this as an opportunity to secure all of the advantages that Turkey currently enjoys without having to go to world court to defend its position. Or Syria might be desperate enough to challenge Turkey militarily and Turkey may want to preempt the Syrians.

yes but remember Americans weigh much more than Vietnamese refugees who have been malnourished and carry nothing except the clothes on their back.

I would foresee a Turkish-Syrian conflict over water rights. Turkey is building huge dams on the Euphrates river that flow downward to Syria and to Iraq. Turkey might see this an an opportunity to finally secure its water rights.