[B]The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan [/B]

[Dark Angel]

Ronald Reagan: History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan
NRDC's nuclear experts think about the unthinkable, using state-of-the-art nuclear war simulation software to assess the crisis in South Asia

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has conducted its own analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia. Prior to this most recent crisis we calculated two nuclear scenarios. The first assumes 10 Hiroshima-sized explosions with no fallout; the second assumes 24 nuclear explosions with significant radioactive fallout. Below is a discussion of the two scenarios in detail and an exploration of several additional issues regarding nuclear war in South Asia.

Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Forces

It is difficult to determine the actual size and composition of India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, but NRDC estimates that both countries have a total of 50 to 75 weapons. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we believe India has about 30 to 35 nuclear warheads, slightly fewer than Pakistan, which may have as many as 48.

Both countries have fission weapons, similar to the early designs developed by the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s. NRDC estimates their explosive yields are 5 to 25 kilotons (1 kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT). By comparison, the yield of the weapon the United States exploded over Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, while the bomb exploded over Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. According to a recent NRDC discussion with a senior Pakistani military official, Pakistan's main nuclear weapons are mounted on missiles. India's nuclear weapons are reportedly gravity bombs deployed on fighter aircraft.

Scenario: 10 Bombs on 10 South Asian Cities

For our first scenario we used casualty data from the Hiroshima bomb to estimate what would happen if bombs exploded over 10 large South Asian cities: five in India and five in Pakistan. (The results were published in "The Risks and Consequences of Nuclear War in South Asia," by NRDC physicist Matthew McKinzie and Princeton scientists Zia Mian, A. H. Nayyar and M. V. Ramana, a chapter in Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian (editors), "Out of the Nuclear Shadow" (Dehli: Lokayan and Rainbow Publishers, 2001).)

The 15-kiloton yield of the Hiroshima weapon is approximately the size of the weapons now in the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals. The deaths and severe injuries experienced at Hiroshima were mainly a function of how far people were from ground zero. Other factors included whether people were in buildings or outdoors, the structural characteristics of the buildings themselves, and the age and health of the victims at the time of the attack. The closer to ground zero, the higher fatality rate. Further away there were fewer fatalities and larger numbers of injuries. The table below summarizes the first nuclear war scenario by superimposing the Hiroshima data onto five Indian and five Pakistan cities with densely concentrated populations

INDIA

Bangalore 3,077,937
Bombay 3,143,284
Calcutta 3,520,344
Madras 3,252,628
New Delhi 1,638,744
Total India 14,632,937

Pakistan

Faisalabad 2,376,478
Islamabad 798,583
Karachi 1,962,458
Lahore 2,682,092
Rawalpindi 1,589,828
Total Pakistan 9,409,439

India and Pakistan
Total 24,042,376 India : 2,862,581 Pakistan : 1,506,859

Ten Hiroshima-size explosions over 10 major cities in India and Pakistan would kill as many as three to four times more people per bomb than in Japan because of the higher urban densities in Indian and Pakistani cities.

cont .........

Link : http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp

 

[Dark Angel]

Scenario: 24 Ground Bursts

In January, NRDC calculated the consequences of a much more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It first appeared as a sidebar in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek ("A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes"). This scenario calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground -- unlike the Hiroshima airburst -- resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

Exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, the United States detonated "Little Boy" weapon above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet. At this height, the radioactive particles produced in the explosion were small and light enough to rise into the upper atmosphere, where they were carried by the prevailing winds. Days to weeks later, after the radioactive bomb debris became less "hot," these tiny particles descended to earth as a measurable radioactive residue, but not at levels of contamination that would cause immediate radiation sickness or death.

Unfortunately, it is easier to fuse a nuclear weapon to detonate on impact than it is to detonate it in the air -- and that means fallout. If the nuclear explosion takes place at or near the surface of the earth, the nuclear fireball would gouge out material and mix it with the radioactive bomb debris, producing heavier radioactive particles. These heavier particles would begin to drift back to earth within minutes or hours after the explosion, producing potentially lethal levels of nuclear fallout out to tens or hundreds of kilometers from the ground zero. The precise levels depend on the explosive yield of the weapon and the prevailing winds.

For the second scenario, we calculated the fallout patterns and casualties for a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each country targeted major cities. We chose target cities throughout Pakistan and in northwestern India to take into account the limited range of Pakistani missiles or aircraft. The target cities, listed in the table below, include the capitals of Islamabad and New Dehli, and large cities, such as Karachi and Bombay. In this scenario, we assumed that a dozen, 25-kiloton warheads would be detonated as ground bursts in Pakistan and another dozen in India, producing substantial fallout.

The devastation that would result from fallout would exceed that of blast and fire. NRDC's second scenario would produce far more horrific results than the first scenario because there would be more weapons, higher yields, and extensive fallout. In some large cities, we assumed more than one bomb would be used.

Pakistan Islamabad (national capital) 100-250 thousand 1
Pakistan Karachi (provincial capital) > 5 million 3
Pakistan Lahore (provincial capital) 1-5 million 2
Pakistan Peshawar (provincial capital) 0.5-1 million 1
Pakistan Quetta (provincial capital) 250-500 thousand 1
Pakistan Faisalabad 1-5 million 2
Pakistan Hyderabad 0.5-1 million 1
Pakistan Rawalpindi 0.5-1 million 1
India New Dehli (national capital) 250-500 thousand 1
India Bombay (provincial capital) > 5 million 3
India Delhi (provincial capital) > 5 million 3
India Jaipur (provincial capital) 1-5 million 2
India Bhopal (provincial capital) 1-5 million 1
India Ahmadabad 1-5 million 1
India Pune 1-5 million 1

NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.

Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.

Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario. Their respective military forces would be still be intact to continue and even escalate the conflict.....

Link :http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp

 

[AirforcePilot]

Nobody wins in a nuclear war.

 

[gogbot]

Dark angle what is the point of discussing the consequences of nuclear war.

 

[FreekiN]

Nobody wins in a nuclear war.

Indeed, nuclear weapons should never be used. But I believe they are a strong deterrent to prevent war and scare off the enemy. Just like in [2002]? when India amassed their troops onto the border, and Musharraf responded with Nuclear retaliation which made the Indians retreat.

 

[Hulk]

Indeed, nuclear weapons should never be used. But I believe they are a strong deterrent to prevent war and scare off the enemy. Just like in [2002]? when India amassed their troops onto the border, and Musharraf responded with Nuclear retaliation which made the Indians retreat.

I guess war is not good and so does nuclear war, but it is also not good to do lose talking on nuclear bombs. India does not have any aggressive designs but if Pakistan continues to support terrorist and major attack happens in India. India will respond, believe me Pakistan having Nuclear bomb does not mean that you can get away with whatever you do just by threatening. Also saying that we will use it, is different that actually using it. I bet Pakistan will not use Nuclear weapon, even if war breaks. Having said that I am not a supporter of war, but want to clarify myths of few people here that having Nuclear bomb means you can carry on terrorist attack and no one will respond.

 

[FreekiN]

I guess war is not good and so does nuclear war, but it is also not good to do lose talking on nuclear bombs. India does not have any aggressive designs but if Pakistan continues to support terrorist and major attack happens in India. India will respond, believe me Pakistan having Nuclear bomb does not mean that you can get away with whatever you do just by threatening. Also saying that we will use it, is different that actually using it. I bet Pakistan will not use Nuclear weapon, even if war breaks. Having said that I am not a supporter of war, but want to clarify myths of few people here that having Nuclear bomb means you can carry on terrorist attack and no one will respond.

True, war should never happen unless it is forced. India cannot use nuclear weapons first because they have the No-FirstUse policy, where they have stated they will not and cannot use their nukes first. I think you should chill with the 'Pakistan supporting terrorists' thing. Infact, there is just as much, if not more proof that RAW is supporting terror in Waziristan. You should stop watching propaganda like CNN-IBN, where they always quote Indian Officials THREATENING Pakistan with WAR. Pakistan never threatens with war, they only threaten retaliation.

Ok, if Pakistan never uses its nuclear weapons then its all good, because India can't use theirs if Pakistan doesn't use theirs first. Pakistan, just like Israel, have taken up the idea that if Pakistan's existence itself is threatened, then only then will they annihilate the enemy. So, in conclusion, nuclear war if highly-unlikely to ever happen. Threats sure, but action, never.

 

[Dark Angel]

Dark angle what is the point of discussing the consequences of nuclear war.

The point of discussion is that nuclear war not only has devastating effects but irreversible damage to humanity,and this is for the members who think pressing the nuclear button is as easy as discussing it on a forum....
Now if you have something constructive please be my guest but dont try to amuse me with one liners

 

[Dark Angel]

Nobody wins in a nuclear war.

simplicity at its best....I agree with you sir

 

[Cheetah786]

http://img4.imageshack.us/i/bhrfinalglowing.jpg/

I belive this is what we will all look like in the future in case we have a nuclear war.2cookooland

 

[S-2]

"Nobody wins in a nuclear war."

Roaches and rats are expected to excel though and they've long advocated an unlimited nuclear free-for-all.

The study really doesn't evaluate the downwind drift factors on associated countries like Bangladesh or Myanmar. I'd been curious to see how they evaluated prevailing winds based on seasonality.