What's new

BrahMos Storage Complex Under Construction in Halwara

KrimesKaster

FULL MEMBER
Dec 22, 2021
250
0
136
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
You need brains to be able to decide, clearly you do not have any because you are stupid. Any doubts I had have disappeared.
Well what can I expect from someone without an ounce of critical thinking. You were always a moron.

You keep ignoring the fact that after a nuclear war the eco system in India will not be the same, you idiot.
Total yield of nukes of Pakistan : 50 * 150 = 7500 KT. It is not even close to that of castle bravo. Its like 2 test no 6. Not enough to do enough damage. And I am being generous to assume yield of Pakistan's nuke is 50 Kt. It is more like 20-30 Kt.
 

Hakikat ve Hikmet

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 14, 2015
14,335
17
38,125
Country
United States
Location
United States
Ambala is housing the S-400 to provide cover for these facilities as well. India is no longer looking for surgical strikes but a larger scale all out campaign to diminish Pakistan military conventional capability to a point where the only option remains nuclear and that can be used as a gambit to pressurize and coerce Pakistan in collusion with other powers to either turn into Bangladesh or at the least give up on most major issues.
India proposes, Pak disposes....
Distance from say Lahore to Halwara is less than 150 Km.....would like to see how the Indian defences would cope with even the likes of Fatah-1 guided rocket system.


View attachment 807153
140 km
Distance from Wagah to Halwara


I am more concerned for the Indians accidentally causing a fire there! Can it damage Pak too?
Well what can I expect from someone without an ounce of critical thinking. You were always a moron.


Total yield of nukes of Pakistan : 50 * 150 = 7500 KT. It is not even close to that of castle bravo. Its like 2 test no 6. Not enough to do enough damage. And I am being generous to assume yield of Pakistan's nuke is 50 Kt. It is more like 20-30 Kt.
Pak has got thermonukes, and that too tipped into the MIRV missiles. Start the war, and you're all dead. Your top Brahmins know it by heart....
 
Last edited:

Jf-17 block 3

FULL MEMBER
Sep 10, 2020
1,180
0
2,328
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Why do Pakistanis bring nuclear weapons in every discussion related to hypothetical conflicts? No one will use it even if wants to.

Because India shouldn’t think we won’t use nukes in a war. War is war. If there’s a full scale war we won’t shy away from using nukes if we have to. When war starts we’ll fight by any means possible India shouldn’t live in its imaginary world thinking we won’t use nukes. If Pakistan isn’t going to survive we will make sure india becomes a nuclear wasteland and is inhabitable for centuries to come. When war starts your daddy America or UN can’t even stop us from using nukes if need be we won’t shy away from turning india into a nuclear wasteland.
 

Huffal

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
2,704
0
3,407
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Well what can I expect from someone without an ounce of critical thinking. You were always a moron.


Total yield of nukes of Pakistan : 50 * 150 = 7500 KT. It is not even close to that of castle bravo. Its like 2 test no 6. Not enough to do enough damage. And I am being generous to assume yield of Pakistan's nuke is 50 Kt. It is more like 20-30 Kt.
How mental do you have to be shrug off a few hundred million deaths caused by a nuclear war? Your rebuttle being there will still be a billion people left... Are you ok? Do you need to see a doctor?
 

KrimesKaster

FULL MEMBER
Dec 22, 2021
250
0
136
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
How mental do you have to be shrug off a few hundred million deaths caused by a nuclear war? Your rebuttle being there will still be a billion people left... Are you ok? Do you need to see a doctor?
When Pakistani say "nuclear war" in every sentence, do they see a doctor?

I am just saying what will happen afterwards. 100s of million will die in both places and that means end of Paksitan and massive deaths and painful survival of India. Its just this much.

If you do not want to hear this, stop Pakistanis from suggesting nuclear war in practically every sentence.

Now who needs a doctor? Me OR Pakistanis?

Lastly, who is mental? Me or Pakistani people and establishment who do not have a no first use policy! If like US-Russia-China, they can also come to a common understanding of not using nuclear weapons first in the war, the entire discussion will be over!

Now, can you convince the real mental people in Pakistan to actually adapt that posture? I doubt you can. And here you are scolding me to tell you what happens after nuclear war. It will be end of Pakistan and a painful future of India.
 

Huffal

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
2,704
0
3,407
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
When Pakistani say "nuclear war" in every sentence, do they see a doctor?

I am just saying what will happen afterwards. 100s of million will die in both places and that means end of Paksitan and massive deaths and painful survival of India. Its just this much.

If you do not want to hear this, stop Pakistanis from suggesting nuclear war in practically every sentence.

Now who needs a doctor? Me OR Pakistanis?
Its you who needs a doctor. Looking at the population density of india and its weak infrastructure, india would most definitely collapse should nuclear war breakout.

Also the threat of nuclear war in the region was not started by us. It was started by you during the 1974 tests. Pakistan is just merely carrying it on considering how they bested india in its own game. Have you seen what 165+ nuclear warheads will do to a nation like India? Yea some may survive, but what will they be left with? A nation whose infrastructure has been wiped out? Have you lot seriously forgotten about MAD? Especially what General Zia Ul Haq promised? There wont be a land of India if Pakistan is destroyed. India will be wiped off of the map. 165+ nukes with a 40KT+ size can accomplish it.

You are a nut case to literally shrug off so many deaths. Good thing your nations govt doesnt think the same as you.
 

KrimesKaster

FULL MEMBER
Dec 22, 2021
250
0
136
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Its you who needs a doctor. Looking at the population density of india and its weak infrastructure, india would most definitely collapse should nuclear war breakout.
No. It won't even in the densest parts, the nukes you have cann't kill more than 1 million people. 400 million is an overestimation. But it will still leave 1 billion Indians alive.

Also the threat of nuclear war in the region was not started by us. It was started by you during the 1974 tests. Pakistan is just merely carrying it on considering how they bested india in its own game.
There is only one nation here which plans to use nukes as battlefield weapons. No prizes to guess who it is. India had bigger worries. China. China was the first asian country to get nukes. After 1962, India also had no choice but to get nukes.

And no, Pakistan has not bested India. Not at all. It has only assured an end to Pakistan in nuclear war. If you want to best India, you need to get Hydrogen bombs and real MIRVs. You don't do that becuase nukes are meant as weapons of battle and not just deterrence to your war planners.

Have you seen what 165+ nuclear warheads will do to a nation like India?
Not much. At 50 Kt a piece thats less than 10 Mt. Not exactly the biggest bang. And Pakistan certainly does not have survivable delivery platforms for all of them. If India goes first to attack Pakistan with nukes in an all out war, most of the delivery mechanisms will be taken out, leaving some 40 odd MRBM launchers. Assuming all of them work, it is not going to be a massive blow to India. If Pakistan does first attack, Indian nukes on SSBNs and MRBM missiles will lay entire Pakistan waste and all Pakistanis dead. Given that India has invested heavily in missile defense, some of the nukes will get intercepted too. Pakistan has no such luxary.

You are a nut case to literally shrug off so many deaths. Good thing your nations govt doesnt think the same as you.
I am only telling what yelling "nuclear war" every time every where means if it is put into action. Go nuclear, go dead. Atleast for Pakistan that is certain.
 

Huffal

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
2,704
0
3,407
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
No. It won't even in the densest parts, the nukes you have cann't kill more than 1 million people. 400 million is an overestimation. But it will still leave 1 billion Indians alive.


There is only one nation here which plans to use nukes as battlefield weapons. No prizes to guess who it is. India had bigger worries. China. China was the first asian country to get nukes. After 1962, India also had no choice but to get nukes.

And no, Pakistan has not bested India. Not at all. It has only assured an end to Pakistan in nuclear war. If you want to best India, you need to get Hydrogen bombs and real MIRVs. You don't do that becuase nukes are meant as weapons of battle and not just deterrence to your war planners.


Not much. At 50 Kt a piece thats less than 10 Mt. Not exactly the biggest bang. And Pakistan certainly does not have survivable delivery platforms for all of them. If India goes first to attack Pakistan with nukes in an all out war, most of the delivery mechanisms will be taken out, leaving some 40 odd MRBM launchers. Assuming all of them work, it is not going to be a massive blow to India. If Pakistan does first attack, Indian nukes on SSBNs and MRBM missiles will lay entire Pakistan waste and all Pakistanis dead. Given that India has invested heavily in missile defense, some of the nukes will get intercepted too. Pakistan has no such luxary.


I am only telling what yelling "nuclear war" every time every where means if it is put into action. Go nuclear, go dead. Atleast for Pakistan that is certain.
A single nuke dropped in delhi will kill over 556,980 civillians and wound another 1,862,470. We have 165+ of those nukes capable of doing that.

Also nukes will be fielded against military targets just saying, including navy.

Oh and ive just did the simulation for Islamabad. Should India use its 60kt nuke on Islamabad, some 160k civillains will die with another 400k injured....
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Well what can I expect from someone without an ounce of critical thinking. You were always a moron.


Total yield of nukes of Pakistan : 50 * 150 = 7500 KT. It is not even close to that of castle bravo. Its like 2 test no 6. Not enough to do enough damage. And I am being generous to assume yield of Pakistan's nuke is 50 Kt. It is more like 20-30 Kt.

Oh
did I just hear an idiot knock his head, it sounded like an echo chamber.
 

HRK

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Sep 24, 2010
13,549
107
36,068
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@waz @The Eagle plz clean this thread from lunatic false flag Indian.

I would also request to plz issue thread ban to him as his postings have derail thread and he is spamming this thread with his disgusting & off-topic idea of Nuclear war.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
37,881
481
84,103
Country
United States
Location
United States
Well what can I expect from someone without an ounce of critical thinking. You were always a moron.


Total yield of nukes of Pakistan : 50 * 150 = 7500 KT. It is not even close to that of castle bravo. Its like 2 test no 6. Not enough to do enough damage. And I am being generous to assume yield of Pakistan's nuke is 50 Kt. It is more like 20-30 Kt.
Wonder when they subcontracted you to test that yield recently?
Please stop wasting our time. Banned from thread
 

arjunk

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2020
2,480
1
4,976
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Wrong!
a. Pakistan does not have 200 nukes.
b. Pakistan does not have enough launchers.
c. Pakistan nukes are not having enough yield.
d. Nuke explosions disperse fallout. Look at hiroshima and nagasaki.


Most of Chinese live near eastern coast of China, far from India, Pakistan and their drama.

How come? And Ghauri is useless for retaliation. Its liquid fueled and takes too long to get it ready. Your reliable launcher is solid fueled Shaheen MRBM which you have less than 50. Assuming all survive first strike and are not taken out by Indian attacks.

And India only has 60kt. Your point?

Aside from Shaheen-II, Pakistan has the same number of Ghaznavi and Shaheen-I just to strike North India, the most densely populated area. Fewer than 50 Shaheen-IIs are sufficient for South and Northeast India.
1642653987277.png
 

surya kiran

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 23, 2012
4,779
-3
5,403
Country
India
Location
India
And India only has 60kt. Your point?

Aside from Shaheen-II, Pakistan has the same number of Ghaznavi and Shaheen-I just to strike North India, the most densely populated area. Fewer than 50 Shaheen-IIs are sufficient for South and Northeast India.
View attachment 809986

All the wrong things being discussed.

A. BrahMos is not considered a nuclear delivery system by the Indian think tanks. With the estimated max range of the next version in the 100s of kms, its not well suited for strategic use. As of date, India nuclear thinking has not been towards tactical use of the same. Even if so, there are other missiles suited for the same.

B. Questions you should be asking are what are the changes one needs to look for changes in Indian posture and what could be dangerous for you.
1. Canisterisation
2. Liquid to Solid
3. Numbers

Canisterisation needs to be looked at not for the missile being road/rail mobile. This simple means, there is a change in readiness. How? Earlier, nuclear assets and missiles were not believed to be mated. Meaning, the warheads were not on top of the missiles. Canisterisation simply means, the warheads are now mated to the missiles. HUMINT to track whether the nuclear readiness is being upped goes out of the window, because its always ready. The warheads are no longer static, they can be moved anywhere and hence difficult to track unless you are saying, sat surveillance is pervasive.

With the move from liquid fueled to solid fueled the time to deploy reduces dramatically. Not to mention, again monitoring is going to prove difficult.

Numbers, this is the diciest thing. Learned estimates put it between 150-200. With the deployment of sea based deterrence, we could cautiously say this number is going to go up.

All of the above. Increased readiness, increased mobility and increased numbers point only to 1 thing. Potential change in Indian nuclear doctrine to first use with counterforce strike.

This simply means, Pakistan needs to up its surveillance capabilities and will be in the shoes that India wore for the past 50 years. Will India use its nukes?
 

waz

SENIOR MODERATOR
Sep 15, 2006
19,427
70
52,604
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Wonder when they subcontracted you to test that yield recently?
Please stop wasting our time. Banned from thread

The dude is hilarious and thinks Pakistan stayed put in the development of nukes since 1998 (24 year ago).

Pakistan’s nukes have yields in the hundreds of KT each as it’s all plutonium based now.
I put up several posts from one of the world’s most renowned nuclear physicists, a Canadian who lectures at US institutions right now. He wrote a detailed write-up on how Pakistan has increased yield many times over. You wouldn’t be believe it but one of these Indian posters, of course he didn’t actually come from a scientific background was arguing against it.
There’s no convincing these arrogant fools.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom