Anne Applebaum's (She’s the only foreign affairs writer at Slate that I actually like) latest Foreigners column discussing the similarities between the current Indo-Pakistani tension with the Cold War. She makes a number of good points on why there’s reason to hope this Balance of Terror will force stability in the relationship.

I hope she’s right, but I fear that the Balance may not yet be terrible enough for deterrence to work effectively. I don’t think even my casualty estimates of around 100 million (and many are far more optimistic than me) is enough to convince both sides that “victory” through nuclear means is impossible.

Irony is everywhere in history’s lessons. The massive arms buildup of the Cold War produced absurdly lethal weapons, weapons that guaranteed the destruction of both sides if used. However, the very lethality of these weapons ensured that they would never kill anyone. The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction meant that even when the opposing governments were a little flaky, the fear of escalation and war kept everyone from making any huge moves.

I don’t think that the problem in India and Pakistan is that they don’t know the true nature of these weapons, it’s that they do, and some of them think that any outcome of a war is worth the cost. India and Pakistan aren’t ever getting rid of their nukes. Perhaps the only way to increase stability in the region is to increase the deadliness of their weapons.

Would India seriously be contemplating an invasion of Kashmir if both sides were armed with H-bombs? Somehow I doubt it.