Highest Rated Comments

Ephemeral_Being236 karma

Okay, so, realistically what do you expect to happen? Like, do you actually think that Kashmir has any hope of achieving independence?

There hasn't been a successful secession movement in... what? A century? The political reality of the world is that no nation state is willing to relinquish control of its territories. Remember Catalonia, a year ago? You know why there hasn't been a rush to update all the maps? That's because the instigators were all arrested, and charged with various crimes. Spain put down a secession movement. Spain. A country with much less willingness to employ force against its subjects than India. There is no universe in which India allows that to occur within its borders.

So, unless I'm missing a secret nuclear arsenal, Kashmir is not powerful enough to break away from India without the support of a greater power (or which there are... two? The United States and China?), and I find it hard to imagine one will come to her aid. Even if China decided to back the process (which is a huge IF), Kashmir would be essentially a puppet state, with the threat of losing her sovereignty if China stopped protecting her. So, we're at best-case you become a puppet state of an autocracy, at constant risk of conquest by India should China pull out. That sounds... bad.

Kashmir cannot be absorbed into Pakistan. That would literally start a nuclear war. We're not doing that. No one would support that plan seriously. I doubt even the Pakistani government would allow such a movement. Too volatile. Besides, you said the people of Kashmir don't really want that.

So, unless someone does something, Kashmir is subsumed into India, and you have to deal with the loss of some autonomy, as well as the death of any dreams of Independence. This seems by FAR the most likely scenario. Unfortunately, that probably means we see militant groups rise up in protest, regional instability, and Kashmir becomes a miserable place to live. Unless, of course, the people just accept they can't win and decide not to fight. That seems highly unlikely, but it is technically an option.

Does any part of this logic seem faulty? And, if not, with the choice between puppet state, nuclear Holocaust, and "being part of India," can we all agree only one of those is even slightly okay?

What am I missing, here, that makes Kashmir think it could ever be independent?

Ephemeral_Being72 karma

Okay, you are correct. I forgot about that. I don't know if I would consider South Sudan a success, given there have been literally constant civil wars going on since the country's inception, but it is technically recognized as an independent state, and the secession is generally considered to be lawful.

I guess we can add "independent, with a corrupt government that is constantly at war with armed factions within its borders as well as the country it is supposedly independent from" as a hypothetical fifth option to the table, if you can somehow stage a civil war in Kashmir long and costly enough to force the Indian Parliament to see granting Kashmir independence as the most effective option to end the conflict.

I shudder to think about the cost in lives necessary to bring a nation of over a billion people to her knees, though. The conflict in the Sudan killed approximately two million people, in a nation of only fifty million. That is roughly four percent of the population. I don't think there is any way a conflict in Kashmir (population ~15m) could approach those casualty figures, and that's a good thing. But, in a hypothetical world where you muck up the water tables enough to kill four percent of India's population, you've just killed fifty million people, mostly civilians, in an attempt to free fifteen million from a democratically elected government.

Are we seriously saying THAT is the best-case scenario, in the minds of the people of Kashmir? Does ANYONE think this sounds like a valid, reasonable alternative to "be part of India?" I'm... struggling to see how that could be true.

Ephemeral_Being35 karma

Same boat, mate. Sorry.

You should seriously consider the TNF inhibitors they're suggesting you take. I assume that's the "immune suppressants" you mentioned in the OP? They actually work. It reduces the pain a bit, after a few months. Only annoying thing is they keep testing for TB every six months.

Also, you tried pregabalin? 'cause, that makes a huge difference in my ability to function. Gabapentin fucked with my head, but pregabalin has virtually no side effects (at least for me - this differs on a patient to patient basis).

Ephemeral_Being17 karma

In the last 15 years, has anyone (state, city, federal, NGOs) seriously advocated NOT rebuilding areas destroyed by natural disasters, and instead permanently relocating the displaced? Do you know of any time this happened? I would be very curious what the responses and long-term effects were.

Ephemeral_Being12 karma

So, why are you writing articles about this?

This isn't news. This isn't even a problem. This is a thing that happens every day, and is NECESSARY. The only way you end ambulance diversion is by not having ambulances, or not having hospitals/doctors. Eventually, SOME hospital SOMEWHERE will be unable to care for a critical patient, and an ambulance will need to go elsewhere.

If you get shot in the heart, do you want to go to the closest ER where their cardiac surgeon is busy and can't see you for five hours, or one further away where a doctor is actually available to treat you?

Your central thesis is flawed. Hospitals with emergency trauma centres aren't going to make sure they have one of every specialist available at every hour of the day. It's simply not possible. You would need to hire an absurd number of doctors at every location who would spend many, many days idling while they don't have emergency cases, but are forced to be there in case one arrives. It's that, or close the trauma centre entirely because you can't afford to staff it.

Which option (diversions, no ER, hospitals wasting money on doctors who will rarely be needed) sounds the best to you?