If you’ve ever played Dungeons and Dragons, you’ll be aware that before a player can enter the game, he must choose (among other things) an alignment, by which he’s supposed to guide his in-game decisions and actions. When I last played D&D, there were four alignments available:

• Lawful Good
• Anarchic Good
• Lawful Evil
• Anarchic Evil

     Those alignments have more significance than just the behavior of character roles in a D&D session, particularly if we tweak them a wee bit:

• Rational Good
• Irrational Good
• Rational Evil
• Irrational Evil

     That partition has a bearing on foreign relations, especially as regards military posture. With them in mind, regard the following tweet:

Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif:

If India attacks and Pakistan's existence is threatened, nobody will survive. We won't let any other country live on this planet either. pic.twitter.com/VzgtIo6AF4

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 6, 2025

     As I don’t speak Urdu, I must assume that the translation above the video is an accurate summary of the Pakistani defense minister’s statements. On that basis, where would you categorize that Pakistani official? In which of the four alignments does he belong?

     Once you’ve decided, select a military posture for any other country to take in opposition to him.

     The design of one nation’s military posture toward another nation depends on many factors, some of which may change suddenly and quite dramatically. For instance, Israel’s posture toward Egypt before the Camp David Accords was wary, ready to cope with an invasion, and mainly non-nuclear. That changed when Sadat signed the Accords with Menachem Begin’s Israeli administration. However, the subsequent assassination of Sadat and his replacement by Hosni Mubarak compelled Israel to revert to its previous posture, as Israel’s government had no way to know whether the Mubarak regime would honor the Accords.

     The fracas between India and Pakistan is more complex. Pakistan is home to several Islamic terror groups. (Remember that it was there that the SEALs found Osama bin Laden.) Those terror groups, which have struck India several times, operate with the tacit protection of Pakistan’s government. The ongoing hostilities between the two nations arose from those facts.

     Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals. I have no idea how large they are. Let’s assume, on the basis of those nations’ economies, that India’s is the larger of the two. But that advantage in numbers would be offset by the greater concentration of population and industry in India, which greatly aids the targeting of Pakistan’s weapons. In light of those facts, what posture would India rationally assume toward Pakistan?

     Now factor in the statements by Khawaja Asif. While Pakistan is very likely unable to do much damage worldwide, given its small arsenal, by expressing a willingness to damage other, nominally uninvolved nations in the event of a nuclear exchange with India, Asif has “raised the stakes.” He’s compelled the defense establishments of other nations to weigh their options for the possibility that either India or Pakistan will initiate a nuclear attack.

     Were India to mount a significant conventional invasion of Pakistan, Pakistan might respond by nuking a major Indian asset – and not necessarily a military asset. What would follow? Would India reply with nukes? If so, would Pakistan reply by nuking some other nation? Its defense minister had said Pakistan is willing, if not necessarily able, to do so. Does that impose a greater degree of restraint on India, by compelling its masters to weigh the ire of other, nominally uninvolved nations? Or does it compel other nations to take a restraining stance toward Pakistan?

     One who threatens, in the event of a clash with a given party, to do violence to an innocent third party is evil. It amounts to hostage-taking, with the identity of the hostage unspecified. But is it rational, a posture calculated to improve the threat-maker’s own prospects, or is it irrational, such that the prospects for the threat-maker will be worsened thereby?

     Pakistan’s government is Islamic, and unlikely to impose any restraint upon the terrorists sheltering under its wings. Therefore we may expect that even if the current hostilities should wind down without escalation, there will be more provocations: more attacks on Indian soil by terrorists from Pakistan. Because of Khawaja Asif’s statements, what will come of it will differ from what would have come had he not spoken. And other nations vulnerable to a nuclear strike from Pakistan, possibly including the United States, will be involved in determining the outcome.

     Questions such as these are why I study conflict resolution.