Next War Between Pakistan and India? End Result?

[Kompromat]

Both countries have Second Strike capability - war would be of no use and it wont be limited to a conventional outfit.

Lets not hope for one.

 

[gubbi]

If cold start remained in Place , we cannot rule out a preemptive Nuclear strike on India.

That is the most irresponsible statement from some people. A preemptive Nuclear strike does not bode well for Pakistan's existence per se. The repercussions of such a folly should be well realized considering Pakistan's past military misadventures. Alas, the lessons seem to be lost in time.

Cold start enables Indian forces to start a massive offensive against Pakistan and capture as much ground as they can before we could respond them.

The whole concept of CSD is to avoid the nuclear flashpoint, i.e. circumvent the Pakistani military's threshold for a nuclear strike, giving India some territorial gains, so as not to threaten Pakistan's existance, but the also such that which can be leveraged in subsequent negotiations.

Anyhow, with Pakistan's first use policy, it becomes very risky for the Pakistani military to use even their missiles. With heightened tensions, India isnt going to wait and watch for a Pakistani missile to strike Indian soil to find out whether it carries a conventional warhead or a nuclear one. There will be a massive Indian retaliation to any missile launched from Pakistan.

In such a scenario it would be one Bloody war and Millions will die.

No. There would be no such scenario. A lot is at stake for the other member nations with whom we share this one planet. It aint your's that you can employ nuclear weapons based on your whims!

PS: Lets not hope for such a stupid war but work for peace that we all can live in prosperity and peace rather than fighting like Idiots.

Touche

 

[Hyde]

you want results before the war begins?
hehehe

i think both countries are capable well enough to destroy each other, so forget the war result..... sooner or later, the peaceful solution of our problems will be found after compromising and peaceful dialogues process while sitting on the table

 

[JF-17_Thunder]

Did you actually bothered to read..what I wrote ??

How does having more nukes change the scenario..can Pakistan ensure destruction of India's second strike capabilities in it is premptive strike??

No need to put childish icons in your post.

I read what you wrote but some of you people can't articulate your thought clearly.

So what are you saying? Only India can destroy Pakistan? Because I don't follow, it appears that you are saying India will survive a nuclear attack by Pakistan and Pakistan won't survive nuclear attack by India.

 

[JF-17_Thunder]

That is the most irresponsible statement from some people. A preemptive Nuclear strike does not bode well for Pakistan's existence per se. The repercussions of such a folly should be well realized considering Pakistan's past military misadventures. Alas, the lessons seem to be lost in time.

What an idiotic statement. It does not bode well of India existance either.

The whole concept of CSD is to avoid the nuclear flashpoint, i.e. circumvent the Pakistani military's threshold for a nuclear strike, giving India some territorial gains, so as not to threaten Pakistan's existance, but the also such that which can be leveraged in subsequent negotiations.

Another immature statement. India would be destroyed as well. Your very naive to think you will survive a nuclear war.

Anyhow, with Pakistan's first use policy, it becomes very risky for the Pakistani military to use even their missiles. With heightened tensions, India isnt going to wait and watch for a Pakistani missile to strike Indian soil to find out whether it carries a conventional warhead or a nuclear one. There will be a massive Indian retaliation to any missile launched from Pakistan.

Ok a little bit sense here.

No. There would be no such scenario. A lot is at stake for the other member nations with whom we share this one planet. It aint your's that you can employ nuclear weapons based on your whims!

You need a little more maturing.

Touche

No wonder you could not get into medical school, Mr. Pharmacist. Let me guess could not break a 25 on your MCAT.

 

[Dr sim]

With both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons ,i think India's edge in conventional weapons is prettymuch mitigated.I believe the next war will be fought on computer i.e cyberwarfare.

it was actively used by Russia in the recent war against Georgia and USA has already established a cyber military command due to the threat of chinese hackers.

In the light of this argument I believe India holds a huge edge over Pakistan with a super vibrant IT industry

 

[amit27]

Was the point of this thread? ever heard of nuclear fallout? depends which way the wind is blowing but it can expose millions to radiation and make all the rivers polluted for who knows how long.

 

[navtrek]

A nuclear war btw India and Pakistan is highly unlikely but if it does happen i dont think India would retaliate with nukes. Coz i belive Pakistan will use nukes only when its about to loose very badly i mean total annihilation which will not happen coz India really has no such interests.

We are more than happy to see a prosperous and happy pakistan which does not sponsor terror in India.

Unlikely nuclear war

India-Pakistan nuclear war would spell global calamity: study

New York, April 8 (IANS) A brief nuclear war between India and Pakistan would rip apart the ozone layer and unleash global devastation - killing millions, besides triggering catastrophic health problems, according to a study by US scientists. Using sophisticated computer modelling, University of Colorado scientists Micahel Mills and Owen Brian Toon have showed that a nuclear war between the two South Asian neighbours, involving 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices, would ignite urban fires and blast five million tonnes of soot 80 km into the air.

The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

“The scenario of a war between India and Pakistan was used as a representative of regional nuclear conflict, potential for which remains high with the increase in nuclear arsenal and the number of nuclear armed nations,” Mills, who led the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, told IANS.

Mills is a research associate with the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the Boulder-based university’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Toon is the director of the department.

India and Pakistan are known to possess the smallest arsenals of the eight nuclear-armed powers. India has about 60 nuclear devices and Pakistan under 50. A nuclear exchange involving a hundred 15 kiloton, Hiroshima-type weapons is only 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the world’s nuclear arsenal, Toon said.

Mills said their research found that the catastrophic impact from even a small nuclear conflict would be much larger than estimated earlier from a bigger nuclear war, when simulation was not that sophisticated. The indirect human casualties elsewhere in the world would be many times more than those who actually die from the war.

“We would see a dramatic drop in ozone levels that would persist for many years,” he said. “At mid-latitudes the ozone decrease would be up to 40 percent, which could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.”

The upper stratosphere, heated by massive smoke injections, would accelerate catalytic reaction cycles, particularly reactions of nitrogen oxide gases that destroy ozone.

“By adopting the Montreal Protocol in 1987, society demonstrated it was unwilling to tolerate a small percentage of ozone loss because of serious health risks,” said Toon.

“But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs.”

The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous “nuclear winter” and “ultraviolet spring” scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts.

A 1985 National Research Council Report in the US predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the Mills-Toon study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

But the new study said ailments like cataracts and skin cancer, as well as damage to plants, animals and ecosystems at mid-latitudes would likely rise sharply as ozone levels decreased and allowed more harmful UV light to reach earth.

Mills said the next step for researchers would be to study the biological impact of the nuclear war scenario, which will damage all organisms, on land and on ocean, thus polluting the food chain.

India-Pakistan nuclear war would spell global calamity: study

 

[chachachoudhary]

A huge mapping is right now in progress using sophisticated satellites to pinpoint the pakistan's nuclear asset depos and silos. India with a couple of nations have been precisely doing this. A good quantity of satellites are already in place and in the coming months you will see an array of next gen satellites going up. The next strategy will be neutralizing Pak's nuclear capability in a blitz. This will be initiated by some one else supported by india even without any provocation. This operation will be so massive and swift with equally massive global propoganda that world will appreciate this move keeping in mind the threats of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. There will not be any subsequent war. After that things will begin to cool down gradually.

Keeping in mind pakistan's geography, most of its nukes are still in China. Very few are actually deployed in a ready to fire status.

 

[Join]

Pakistan is not Israel. It can handle several dozen nukes. You are being an overzealous by saying this. Pakistan has more nukes and more powerful nukes than India. You can't say India can wipe out Pakistan because Pakistan can do just the same. There wouldn't be no Pakistan and India not just no Pakistan.

Buddy, No matter You have More or even agreed to Your claim more powerful nukes, God Forbidden, if used against us, we have the capability to strike back, But Have You got the Capability to strike back after the series of Second Strike from us????

We would be Hurt, But will survive..... But What About you dear?? Could You??

 

[navtrek]

I feel major areas of Pakistan would have been taken and i guess any movement across Kashmir is unlikely but still with time can be captured. or as below

Cold start doctrine is not about capturing Pakistani territory but inflicting as much damage as possible to enemy forces and infrastructure within matter of hours. It is more like a hit and run tactics giving no time to Pakistan to react

Under Cold Start Indian military would make sure that any diplomatic solution comes after India gets all its objectives.

This paradigm of warfare revolves around asymmetrical warfare to get a moral victory with minimum nation state involvement.

 

[navtrek]

India and Pakistan: War in the Nuclear Shadow?


Along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, over a million Pakistani and Indian troops await a war. This disputed region set off two of the three wars India and Pakistan have fought since they emerged out of the remnants of the British Empire in 1947. India won all three, and since the latest war in 1971, the conflict has smoldered on, driven by Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri insurgency since 1989. The situation grew exponentially more dangerous when each state deployed nuclear weapons, revealed to the world in tit-for-tat nuclear tests in the spring of 1998. Though U.S.-led efforts to head off war seem to be making headway, historical animus and nuclear weapons will sustain the potential for disastrous conflict.

Many political theorists argue that the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides will prevent another major war. By making the risks of war unthinkable, the logic goes, nuclear weapons create a balance of terror, sobering leaders and necessitating dialogue, as in the Cold War.1 Yet today in Kashmir the threat of war looms despite these weapons. Are nuclear weapons then containing or causing conflict in Kashmir? Perhaps both. Because both states have nuclear weapons, neither is likely to intentionally launch an all-out war. But nuclear weapons permit the states to take lesser violent actions - risks that attempt to exploit the chance of catastrophe for strategic gain.

In 1999, over 1,000 Pakistan-based militants and Pakistani regulars crossed the Line of Control into the Indian Kargil area and seized Indian army outposts in a surprise attack.2 The Indian army regrouped, driving the Pakistani forces back. As the Indians attacked, Pakistan prepared its intermediate-range missiles for nuclear strikes, perhaps to deter India from attacking Pakistani territory. U.S. diplomacy helped persuade Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull his troops out of India and temporarily head off full-scale war.3 Months later, General Pervez Musharraf, widely held to be the architect of the Kargil offensive, deposed Sharif.

Tensions mounted again in December, 2001, when five militants attacked the Indian Parliament, killing 14, leading India to mass its army along the Line of Control. Pakistan responded by massing its forces and, under international pressure, announcing a crackdown on Islamic militants infiltrating from Pakistan to Kashmir. But on May 14, three infiltrators killed 32 people, mostly the families of Indian soldiers, near Jammu. Recent reports indicate that Pakistan-based militants may have joined forces with al Qaeda terrorists driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. military.

The lessons of the Kargil conflict inform events today. In sending troops over the Line of Control in 1999, Pakistan gambled that its nuclear weapons would prevent India from responding with an invasion of Pakistan. Pakistani leaders may believe that the Kargil conflict revealed that they could allow the militant infiltrators to attack India without provoking a major Indian military response - although publicly Musharraf has promised to stop infiltrations.4

Pakistan's refusal to institute a no-first use policy for its nuclear weapons (India has such a policy) is designed to keep Indians guessing about when Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons, preventing a major conventional attack against the inferior Pakistani army. In February, Pakistani General Khalid Kidwai, chief of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, which controls Pakistan's nuclear weapons, said that should India threaten to conquer a large portion of Pakistan (including Azad, Pakistan's portion of Kashmir), destroy the Pakistani army, strangle Pakistan economically, or politically destabilize Pakistan, Pakistan might use nuclear weapons.5

Any Indian attack into Pakistan could lead to some of those scenarios. Nonetheless, Indian leaders reason that since their nuclear arsenal would survive a Pakistani first strike and hit back, Pakistan would never order a nuclear strike unless its very existence was at stake. Should the infiltrations continue, India might then attack the militant's bases across the Line of Control, calling Pakistan's bluff. One danger in that strategy is that Pakistan might construe even a limited Indian offensive into Pakistan as a threat to its national existence and use nuclear weapons, starting a nuclear exchange that kills millions.

Even assuming that such a scenario is impossible, that a rational leader like Musharraf would never intentionally start a nuclear war in the face of a conventional attack, a number of paths could still lead to a nuclear war. The problem with the nuclear brinkmanship that presumes a limited war can be fought under the nuclear umbrella is that it assumes the prevalence of rational decision-making, transparent intentions, and perfect command and control. In a crisis, such assumptions may not hold.

Unlike the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War who had enough weapons to destroy the opposing nation several times over after surviving a nuclear strike, India and Pakistan have relatively few nuclear weapons. Pakistan is generally estimated to have between 25 and 50 nuclear weapons, with some designated for delivery by its F-16s and some outfitted for its missiles. India likely has between 30 and 60 nuclear weapons, also available for planes and missiles. Each leader, despite public assurances to the contrary, may worry that the other nation could destroy its nuclear arsenal with a surprise first strike, necessitating quick trigger fingers. This problem is of greater concern for Pakistan, because without its nuclear weapons, the weaker Pakistani army might be at India's mercy.

This instability is exacerbated by proximity. As neighbors, nuclear missiles would arrive in minutes in an attack, meaning the leaders have little time to verify intelligence about the other's intentions. Given the fear of having his small arsenal destroyed and the short decision timetable, either nation's leader might then order a nuclear attack based on faulty reports that the other is preparing to strike. For instance, although both sides generally keep their warheads stored separately from the delivery vehicles, during a crisis like the current one, this may change. The need to quickly arm the weapons might be misconstrued by the other side as presaging an imminent launch, leading that state to launch. Moreover, the risk of a disarming first strike might lead one side to delegate launch authority to military leaders in the field who lack their leader's discretion. A conventional Indian attack that severed Pakistani command and control might lead a rogue Pakistani military officer to launch a nuclear attack on his own. Additionally, a stunning military victory by India might lead the extremists within the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies to unseat Musharraf. Islamic extremists might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear war.

These are only a few of catastrophic scenarios that could play out in between India and Pakistan, possibly as a result of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. Nuclear weapons may help prevent a fourth India-Pakistan war, but they also may embolden their keepers to take grave risks for strategic gains. Such gains, purchased through nuclear blackmail, will be worthless if error or treachery deliver the potential disaster they exploit.

Nuclear - India and Pakistan: War in the Nuclear Shadow?

 

[navtrek]

A highly unlikely war guys i don't believe there can be a fourth war

Even if there is it will be a small skirmish. It will never reach the nuclear threshold Hope we can sort out all our issues peacefully.

Long standing peace is what we all need. Ages have passed with people being fed with sentiments of Hate for each other on both sides.

One look at this thread shows how war mongering we have all become

let there be peace

 

[MilesTogo]

I think one could study Kargil war to predict the future wars.

 

[flanker143]

such threads always result in flame wars .... no way to stop them ...... its better to close such threads......

personally i feel that pak is not in state(economic) to conduct full fledged against india......