|To address briefly the Roy Keane issue: it is typical middle-class prole-baiting to say "look! The scum are more interested in football than impending nuclear war over Kashmir!" Yes, it would be nice if a ten-million-man march swept to Downing Street to demand strenuous efforts for peace, but to say that football is a bad distraction while Greek theatre or the Invisibles is a good one just seems fatuous. Better by far to criticise the newspapers who majored on Byers' resignation today (i.e. pretty much all of them, as far as I can tell), rather than kvetching that the back pages are taken up by -shock horror - sport. Henry Porter has done exactly this in the Guardian, and it just smacks of being picked last in the schoolyard.|
Besides, the World Cup can at least be predicted.
However, Porter's article is quite useful for identifying some of the reasons for the muted international response. It's online here.
On the likelihood of fire and tumult, there's a risk assessment here. Unfortunately, as a glance at the respective population figures (142million to a billion), India comprehensively outnumbers and outguns Pakistan (by about 2 to 1, in fact, which con Clausewitz would say gave them a near-conclusive advantage). So a conventional war would be an extremely difficult proposition, especially as losing Kashmir is not a realistic option (remember the good old days when wars rearranged borders?) if there is a possible, albeit nuclear, response. Before condemning too heartily, it may be worth noting that similar thinking was intended to justify nuclear resistance in the face of the overpowering mass of the Warsaw Pact...
Of course, India also has a shitload more nuclear warheads (probably - Jane's isn't totally clear on the numbers) too, but in a limited nuclear exchange that shouldn't matter as much. Besides, India a) wouldn't want to exhaust its nuclear arsenal with China over its shoulder and b) is aware that these things cost *money*, you know, as well as political will.
Personally, I'm bricking it.