What's new

India-Pakistan Nuclear War Would Leave 125 Million People Dead

peagle

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,401
3
3,346
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
"serious national security thinkers in India have increasingly discussed the permissibility and strategic benefits of...a nuclear disarming strike in certain extreme circumstances.” A preemptive nuclear strike on Pakistani nuclear targets is not foreclosed for many Indian strategists"
@arjunk
@peagle

Which is why we must PREPARE for nuclear war not attempt to prevent it because it CANT be prevented.

The whole basis of nuclear strategy is about taking out your opponent's assets, if you can, before they can be used.
It does not require serious thinkers of any kind, it is the basic essence of nuclear strategy.

So, your reasonings are a moot point. I have already discussed the point in your thread to a conclusion.
 

Baibars_1260

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
2,203
0
2,154
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The whole basis of nuclear strategy is about taking out your opponent's assets, if you can, before they can be used.
It does not require serious thinkers of any kind, it is the basic essence of nuclear strategy.

So, your reasonings are a moot point. I have already discussed the point in your thread to a conclusion.
I was referring to the extract from your thread. A premptive strike on Pakistan IS being contemplated by the enemy.
Though widely suspected this was not known from a public information source until you posted it on this forum,

Indian guests who went to the Civil defense thread swore on the " No first use " option and Pakistani peaceniks said "Only if India attacks first..."
To conclude based on your post :

1. A preemptive nuclear attack on Pakistan has been considered.
2. It is likely if India believes it can destroy Pakistan's capability to strike back.
3. It is likely if India believes it can destroy all incoming ballistic and cruise missile threats.

Why would India nuke Pakistan?

As they say all over the world,:
"It is Hindu Muslim problem stupid."
Nothing more to add. Am busy working on my nuclear shelter.😊
 
Last edited:

peagle

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,401
3
3,346
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I was referring to the extract from your thread. A premptive strike on Pakistan IS being contemplated by the enemy.
Though widely suspected this was not known from a public information source until you posted it on his forum,

Indian guests who went to the Civil defense thread swore on the " No first use " option and Pakistani peaceniks said "Only if India attacks first..."
To conclude based on your post :

1. A preemptive nuclear attack on Pakistan has been considered.
2. It is likely if India believes it can destroy Pakistan's capability to strike back.
3. It is likely if India believes it can destroy all incoming ballistic and cruise missile threats.

Why would India nuke Pakistan?

As they say all over the world,:
"It is Hindu Muslim problem stupid."
Nothing more to add. Am busy working on my nuclear shelter.😊
I am sure that level of information is common knowledge by now, I wouldn't have thought it's a state secret these days. But then again the benchmark isn't that high here. Cheap shots over original discussion are all the rage.

There is no point in hiding from the fact that it is a Hindu Muslim problem, that has been structured incorrectly, but I do not see how that's relevant because every problem has a cause, and one cause is as good as any, it does not mean it becomes irrelevant or should be dismissed.

What India thinks or believes is the least of my concerns, that is one massive fantasy creating factory. If it hasn't been able to do anything to Pakistan in 70 years, when it enjoyed all the advantages and was much bigger, it can do fuk-all now. I think it is time to build and portray some confidence in our thinking. The confidence exists but somehow we are very poor at expressing it by choosing the wrong arguments and the wrong words in expressing ourselves.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to building your shelter, that I'm sure won't stand a grenade hit, let alone a nuclear blast lol
Have fun
 

Nasr

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 9, 2018
2,528
1
4,709
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The tragic result of two adversaries armed to the teeth with more than 280 nuclear warheads between them.

Here's What You Need to Remember: There are even questions about New Delhi rethinking its nuclear no-first-use doctrinePakistan’s nuclear doctrine remains purposely ambiguous, with the Pakistani military stating that Islamabad would not hesitate to use a tactical nuclear weapon to defend itself against a conventional Indian invasion.

India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed rivals with one of the world’s oldest, unresolved territorial disputes, have fought three wars and numerous skirmishes. The two countries nearly went to war again in 1999 when Pakistani troops crossed the Line of Control into Kargil, an offensive that could have spiraled into a full-blown nuclear exchange were it not for firm crisis diplomacy led by President Bill Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Because of the adversarial history, the intense regional competition, and nationalistic politics in both countries, there has always been a dark question hovering over the India-Pakistan relationship: what would happen if New Delhi and Islamabad used their nuclear weapons during a conflict?
Ten researchers across the United States gamed out scenarios in order to answer this exact question. Writing in the journal Science Advances, the researchers calculated that as many as 125 million people could perish on both sides of the India-Pakistan border.

The numbers are staggering, a result of two adversaries armed to the teeth with at least 280 nuclear warheads between them.The full study is full of scientific measurements that can be difficult for the layperson to understand, but the conclusion is anything but. An India-Pakistan nuclear war would make the world’s previous conflicts look like small battles. If both governments decided to aim those warheads at major population centers to exert maximum damage, the carnage could only be accurately described as a modern-day apocalypse.

“Because of the dense populations of cities in Pakistan and India...even a war with 15-kt weapons could lead to fatalities approximately equal to those worldwide in WWII,” the authors write. A war fought with 100-kt weapons could result “2.5 times as many as died worldwide in WWII and in this nuclear war, the fatalities could occur in a single week.”
And those are only the direct casualties that result from the weapons themselves. The environmental impact of a nuclear war between these South Asian neighbors would be just as devastating, with its consequences reaching far beyond the immediate region. Surface sunlight would decrease by 20%-25%, causing temperatures to decline by as much as 41 degrees. The temperature change would have massive global repercussions on the food supply, with a 15 to 30% hit on agriculture.

One would hope that the mere thought of losing tens of millions of people would deter India and Pakistan from even pondering a nuclear option. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. There are even questions about New Delhi rethinking its nuclear no-first-use doctrinePakistan’s nuclear doctrine remains purposely ambiguous, with the Pakistani military stating that Islamabad would not hesitate to use a tactical nuclear weapon to defend itself against a conventional Indian invasion. ; in the International Security Journal earlier this year, M.I.T.’s Viping Narang and the University of Albany’s Christopher Clary write that “serious national security thinkers in India have increasingly discussed the permissibility and strategic benefits of...a nuclear disarming strike in certain extreme circumstances.” A preemptive nuclear strike on Pakistani nuclear targets is not foreclosed for many Indian strategists. Any doctrinal change from India would naturally elicit more paranoia in Pakistan, a country that would simply further bandwagon on the nuclear card for its external defense (Pakistan is conventionally outmatched by India and spends less than one-fifth of what its larger neighbor spends on defense).
President Ronald Reagan once said that “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” For the sake of the planet and their own survival, Indian and Pakistani leaders should start adopting the mantra asan official position.

Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist at the Washington Examiner and contributor to the National Interest.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/r...ar-would-leave-125-million-people-dead-179883
Daniel R. DePetris should be worrying more about his own country. The way america is going for the last decade, a Nuclear War in Southern Asian Continental Region, would be the least of anyone's worries. Particularly when we are staring down the barrel of a Global Nuclear Exchange which would wipe out 60%-70% of the world's population.

The guy really ought to assess his priorities on the subject. Seems he's blind on one end of the spectrum.
 

crankthatskunk

SENIOR MEMBER
May 20, 2011
4,876
4
9,273
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
A nuclear scenario comes when their is already a naval and air dominance by India and Indian Army is thrusting into pakistan.

Let's say you attack an incoming IBG with an small nuclear warhead (that too in your territory) resulting in India launching a massive nuclear strike against all your nuclear assets.

How many will survive ?

Are they good enough to overwhelm Indian BMD ( S 400, AAD,PAD,S 300, AKASH ,Other sams) etc ?

COAS was just being kind, in my book the one who signs a surrender document is a coward.
Are you nuts!!

Look at the reality nut case. With all estimates by the independent sources, Pakistan has more quantity and better quality nuclear weapons than India.

So why you think India is capable of launching a massive nuclear strike on Pakistan, but Pakistan is not capable to do so.

If only you know what I know, therefore, you better shut up.
 

ZeEa5KPul

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 13, 2017
2,409
-16
6,286
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
China should help Pakistan upgrade its nuclear weapons. These numbers are paltry and insufficient. India needs to be reminded of its place.
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,734
-17
25,389
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
The tragic result of two adversaries armed to the teeth with more than 280 nuclear warheads between them.

Here's What You Need to Remember: There are even questions about New Delhi rethinking its nuclear no-first-use doctrinePakistan’s nuclear doctrine remains purposely ambiguous, with the Pakistani military stating that Islamabad would not hesitate to use a tactical nuclear weapon to defend itself against a conventional Indian invasion.

India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed rivals with one of the world’s oldest, unresolved territorial disputes, have fought three wars and numerous skirmishes. The two countries nearly went to war again in 1999 when Pakistani troops crossed the Line of Control into Kargil, an offensive that could have spiraled into a full-blown nuclear exchange were it not for firm crisis diplomacy led by President Bill Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Because of the adversarial history, the intense regional competition, and nationalistic politics in both countries, there has always been a dark question hovering over the India-Pakistan relationship: what would happen if New Delhi and Islamabad used their nuclear weapons during a conflict?
Ten researchers across the United States gamed out scenarios in order to answer this exact question. Writing in the journal Science Advances, the researchers calculated that as many as 125 million people could perish on both sides of the India-Pakistan border.

The numbers are staggering, a result of two adversaries armed to the teeth with at least 280 nuclear warheads between them.The full study is full of scientific measurements that can be difficult for the layperson to understand, but the conclusion is anything but. An India-Pakistan nuclear war would make the world’s previous conflicts look like small battles. If both governments decided to aim those warheads at major population centers to exert maximum damage, the carnage could only be accurately described as a modern-day apocalypse.

“Because of the dense populations of cities in Pakistan and India...even a war with 15-kt weapons could lead to fatalities approximately equal to those worldwide in WWII,” the authors write. A war fought with 100-kt weapons could result “2.5 times as many as died worldwide in WWII and in this nuclear war, the fatalities could occur in a single week.”
And those are only the direct casualties that result from the weapons themselves. The environmental impact of a nuclear war between these South Asian neighbors would be just as devastating, with its consequences reaching far beyond the immediate region. Surface sunlight would decrease by 20%-25%, causing temperatures to decline by as much as 41 degrees. The temperature change would have massive global repercussions on the food supply, with a 15 to 30% hit on agriculture.

One would hope that the mere thought of losing tens of millions of people would deter India and Pakistan from even pondering a nuclear option. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. There are even questions about New Delhi rethinking its nuclear no-first-use doctrinePakistan’s nuclear doctrine remains purposely ambiguous, with the Pakistani military stating that Islamabad would not hesitate to use a tactical nuclear weapon to defend itself against a conventional Indian invasion. ; in the International Security Journal earlier this year, M.I.T.’s Viping Narang and the University of Albany’s Christopher Clary write that “serious national security thinkers in India have increasingly discussed the permissibility and strategic benefits of...a nuclear disarming strike in certain extreme circumstances.” A preemptive nuclear strike on Pakistani nuclear targets is not foreclosed for many Indian strategists. Any doctrinal change from India would naturally elicit more paranoia in Pakistan, a country that would simply further bandwagon on the nuclear card for its external defense (Pakistan is conventionally outmatched by India and spends less than one-fifth of what its larger neighbor spends on defense).
President Ronald Reagan once said that “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” For the sake of the planet and their own survival, Indian and Pakistani leaders should start adopting the mantra asan official position.

Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist at the Washington Examiner and contributor to the National Interest.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/r...ar-would-leave-125-million-people-dead-179883
Such Western propaganda is as old as the hills.
 

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


Top Bottom