I had this exact conversation the other day over a coffee.
Personally, my position is very clear...I am happy the attack happened in Kashmir. The issue gets more complex when you play out the action of the parties and the counter-parties involved in this potential conflict. If escalated it would lead to full war and affect many civilians and the construct of society. If through this process it happens that nuclear war is reached, this would lead the whole globe into full-blown war, affecting everyone in every society and that eventuality I don't think anyone really wants or is prepared for.
The question which sits in my mind is the following.. Is it wise to allow the majority of world to sit happily in normal everyday life and allow the unimaginable horrors of conflict to affect only a few in isolated pockets of the world, and knowing that let it be, at the expense of those lives? Considering that any could see (although be hopeful it would not happen) the path that world civilisation is on has only one inevitability, and that is a huge war on a global scale, why attempt to avoid the inevitable? We are just delaying it. And by delaying it, are we making it worse. Would we save more lives (on a macro-scale) if we had full blown global war now, rather than in 50 years.
