What's new

A 'limited' Nuclear War in S.Asia, would kill 2 Billion people | Study Finds.

Possible. Which is why India is so desperate at setting up a fleet of nuclear subs. Only with a fleet of such subs which can collectively carry enough nukes to assure MAD can India be truly sure that Pakistan will not ring in the first nuke shots on the subcontinent.

Dnt know abt India .. Pakistan has already set up a strategic naval command .. Our subs will be armed with nuclear capable cruise missiles .. As for MAD .. U ain't steel our concept ..:lol:

It's Pakistans Sampsons option .. We go down .. We make sure u go down with us.
 
Dnt know abt India .. Pakistan has already set up a strategic naval command .. Our subs will be armed with nuclear capable cruise missiles .. As for MAD .. U ain't steel our concept ..:lol:

It's Pakistans Sampsons option .. We go down .. We make sure u go down with us.

IMO, MAD cannot be guaranteed with conventional subs, even with AIP-tech equipped ones. And carrying nuke capable missiles is one thing, carrying nuke warheads is another. Nothing less than 30-40 warheads need to be seaborne to guarantee MAD via a strong nuke triad. Where does Pakistan stand in this regard?

well lets concentrate on peace.
it can start on a same level on this forum and hopefully spread

Well, we can wish each other well here...but who will gag our loudmouths? Another such interview, another similarly irresponsible and insensitive comment, and Voila! We'll all be back to square-one.:sarcastic:
 
IMO, MAD cannot be guaranteed with conventional subs, even with AIP-tech equipped ones. And carrying nuke capable missiles is one thing, carrying nuke warheads is another. Nothing less than 30-40 warheads need to be seaborne to guarantee MAD via a strong nuke triad. Where does Pakistan stand in this regard?
I don't think you understand the difference between a nuclear missile carrying sub n a nuclear sub .. A nuclear sub only has one advantage tht is endurance ... AIP subs on the other hand are quieter n have an endurance of over a month... Thts the main difference between the two .. The new subs Pakistan is buying will be equipped with naval Babur CMs .. Whih can carry conventional aswell as nuclear warheads .. Hence the naval strategic command was created..
 
I don't think you understand the difference between a nuclear missile carrying sub n a nuclear sub .. A nuclear sub only has one advantage tht is endurance ... AIP subs on the other hand are quieter n have an endurance of over a month... Thts the main difference between the two .. The new subs Pakistan is buying will be equipped with naval Babur CMs .. Whih can carry conventional aswell as nuclear warheads .. Hence the naval strategic command was created..

Oye, I know the difference between the two. But my assertion is based precisely on the difference in their endurance limits. A well-stocked nuclear sub can easily remain for over 4 months at sea while a conventional sub has to resurface or have a port call at least once in a month or so. My hypothesis is that any nuclear exchange will only follow after a protracted conventional war, during which time it is possible to target conventional subs whenever they resurface. Chances of them being neutralised during the course of such a conventional war are pretty high in comparison to nuke-powered subs.
 
Oye, I know the difference between the two. But my assertion is based precisely on the difference in their endurance limits. A well-stocked nuclear sub can easily remain for over 4 months at sea while a conventional sub has to resurface or have a port call at least once in a month or so.

But there are limiting factors you to tht 4 months bs.. Apart from tht if there are over 9 AIPs subs ared with nukes how many will you somehow track .. Which in previous wars you couldn't ? Even if 1 or 2 out of the 9 get through it .. U will still face strikes..


My hypothesis is that any nuclear exchange will only follow after a protracted conventional war, during which time it is possible to target conventional subs whenever they resurface. Chances of them being neutralised during the course of such a conventional war are pretty high in comparison to nuke-powered subs.

Calm down armchair general .. Let's ask a real naval officer @Rashid Mahmood Sir your into will be valued n appreciated .
 
But there are limiting factors you to tht 4 months bs.. Apart from tht if there are over 9 AIPs subs ared with nukes how many will you somehow track .. Which in previous wars you couldn't ? Even if 1 or 2 out of the 9 get through it .. U will still face strikes..




Calm down armchair general .. Let's ask a real naval officer @Rashid Mahmood Sir your into will be valued n appreciated .

Err, the main thrust of my argument was about the 'possibility' of greater detection owing to greater time spent on surface by a conventional sub over a nuke sub. Nothing to suggest they would all be spotted and taken down during War. I'm very well aware that a submerged conventional sub is far more stealthy than a submerged nuke sub.

MAD would depend on the number of nuke warheads that Pakistan's subs would carry. Anything less than 30 warheads will not guarantee assured destruction of a country of our size, merely substantial damage.
 
But there are limiting factors you to tht 4 months bs.. Apart from tht if there are over 9 AIPs subs ared with nukes how many will you somehow track .. Which in previous wars you couldn't ? Even if 1 or 2 out of the 9 get through it .. U will still face strikes..




Calm down armchair general .. Let's ask a real naval officer @Rashid Mahmood Sir your into will be valued n appreciated .

SSBNs are not meant to enter the theater of war. They are to be deployed far away just to be used as launch vessels for nukes.
Whereas, AIP subs have a different role. They are very mush part of the theater against enemy warships, subs.

However, an AIP Sub when armed with SLCMs, changes the role and deployment of the sub. It will not be deployed in the theater and will specifically be used as a second or a first strike vessel.

AIP does not need to surface to charge its batteries, thats why it is called AIP.

Even in modern ASW tactics, it has a very slim chance to hunt & kill a submarine deployed in the Arabian Sea.
It's looking for a needle in a haystack. Subs tactics are all about concealment and that is what they are best in.

Nuclear armed subs are considered to be a second strike weapon, but I would use these nuclear armed subs in a pre-emptive first strike. This is what the USN will do.
 
There. Finally. Too many folks I've come across have said that in such an event 'we' would wipe out Pakistan, whereas 'we'd' absorb the damage and live on.

No one gets to survive a nuclear strike. If South Asian wheat belt is contaminated, the rest will simply die out of mass starvation.
 
wel since india has no first use policy, it would be pakistan that would have to hit hard enough that we get no response from india.

Not a possibility even with 5000 Nukes.


I don't think you understand the difference between a nuclear missile carrying sub n a nuclear sub .. A nuclear sub only has one advantage tht is endurance ... AIP subs on the other hand are quieter n have an endurance of over a month... Thts the main difference between the two .. The new subs Pakistan is buying will be equipped with naval Babur CMs .. Whih can carry conventional aswell as nuclear warheads .. Hence the naval strategic command was created..

The difference is not only in platform but also in missiles. Cruise missiles are easier to intercept compared to Ballistic missiles.

Even Tunguska, a 1980's tech could shoot down Cruise missiles.

No one gets to survive a nuclear strike. If South Asian wheat belt is contaminated, the rest will simply die out of mass starvation.


Oh! Don't be ridiculous.

A Nuke carries 30-80 Kg of Nuclear material depending on it's make. It is not even enough to irradiate a small district.A Nuclear reactor carries 4000 times more Nuclear material than a bomb and even major meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fushikuma have not be enough to irradiate large areas like Indo-Gangetic Plains( both in India and Pakistan).

Also though Plutonium is poisonous,Uranium is pretty harmless.
 
Last edited:
When SUB Swamy said 2 years, he knows what it is...
He is in regular touch with Modi, who was breifed by head of our armed forces of India's military readiness to fight a war.
Arihant will be ready in 2 years...

No one gets to survive a nuclear strike. If South Asian wheat belt is contaminated, the rest will simply die out of mass starvation.

It does not mean that India gets punished by Pakistan a la 26/11 and do nothing....
Pakistan prints Indian currency, breaks ceasefire many a times...What is this?
BTW, Pakistan's nuke bluff was called during Kargil, when NS went pleading to Clinton and waited 4 hours at his door step...
Even Bajapyee said Aar-par ki ladai...
If it is a war so be it...
I do not think Pakistan will be the one to start nukes....Hell no....
 
Some mentally ill Indians who supports Indian terrorist groups such as RSS, VHP, Modhi, Tamil tigress don't care.

Here is proof

Q: But Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state.
Swamy: So what? Let them use nuclear weapons. We’ll use it on them. There will be no Pakistan left. May be 100 million will die, no problem.
:crazy::crazy::crazy:
So you've taken this scatterbrain seriously? :woot: C'mon man, you can do better than quoting him! :crazy:

And Modi ain't a terrorist as you suggest. I think you need to visit a shrink, pronto!
photo.jpg
:D
 
Last edited:
Not a possibility even with 5000 Nukes.




The difference is not only in platform but also in missiles. Cruise missiles are easier to intercept compared to Ballistic missiles.

Even Tunguska, a 1980's tech could shoot down Cruise missiles.




Oh! Don't be ridiculous.

A Nuke carries 30-80 Kg of Nuclear material depending on it's make. It is not even enough to irradiate a small district.A Nuclear reactor carries 4000 times more Nuclear material than a bomb and even major meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fushikuma will not be enough to irradiate large areas like Indo-Gangetic Plains( both in India and Pakistan).

Also though Plutonium is poisonous,Uranium is pretty harmless.


You should now get more tanguska to intercept cruise missiles .. Be the first to explore tht option .. The world is so stupid.. The should have asked you how to shoot down cruise missiles..:lol:
@Secur. @Deterrent
 
Just one question - Where are 2 billion people in S. Asia on the first place?

Many people in the world would die out of hunger...global famine i guess. Not to mention the hazardous environment, contaminated waters, etc that will effect neighboring countries severely.

So you've taken this scatterbrain seriously? :woot: C'mon man, you can do better than quoting him! :crazy:

And would I not take him seriously? He is a mental case out of mental hospital & can harm people...won't you take a person seriously who is proudly stating on a national television that he have no problem if 300 people die?

And Modi ain't a terrorist as you suggest. I think you need to visit a shrink, pronto!
photo.jpg
:D

Oh yes he is...no doubt about that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom