Pakistan could have up to 250 nuclear warheads by 2025, says report | Janes

[hussain0216]

If Pakistan exists after first shot. You are acting as if India will not retaliate.

Sure it will retaliate but we should aim to burn as much of india as we can, it will be for the benefit of the entire region

 

[FuturePAF]

No they are not enough to take out entire cities.

You do know that not every one in Hiroshima and Nagasaki got cancer. Do you?
Heck, even Chernobyl disaster caused maximum 1000 more cancers and it had much much more radioactive material than nuclear bombs carry.
You are uneducated.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Try simulating one explosion and see how big 5-psi radius goes.
Sorry reality does not work the way Pakistani are taught.

It not really about targeting the bulk of the population. Who would waste a weapon on the poor masses, but rather go for the concentrations of rich, educated, skilled populations. Go after the key infrastructure; industries, electricity, universities, hubs of R&D, Military installations, and back up facilities, etc.

Focus Targeting was part of the counter-value and counter-force doctrines during the cold war. Depending on the threat profile and response, there was always an option of the SIOP; that targeted all the key military, civilian, and backup faculties of each other.

 

[Shamsher1990]

One large nuke radiation can poison several small.cities FYI

Nope. Radioactive particles like Plutonium are quite heavy and they don't travel far. Also, farther they go, less their concentration become. Nuclear radiation at lower concentration is not exactly very harmful. Chernobyl caused much bigger distribution of nuclear particles worldwide than any bomb could do.

Also bigger bombs have to be cleaner. Because they are fusion based.
Dirty bombs are not useful from a tactical and military point of view.

 

[khanmubashir]

1000 warheads isn't enough for a nuclear winter though. Try at least 10,000 warheads of the 15 megatons range.

Where is your PhD thesis because to an American nuclear scientist who has even detonation of 100 heroshema nukes for within few days time frame.in large cities can cause nuclear winter and famine google ted talk

No they are not enough to take out entire cities.

You do know that not every one in Hiroshima and Nagasaki got cancer. Do you?
Heck, even Chernobyl disaster caused maximum 1000 more cancers and it had much much more radioactive material than nuclear bombs carry.
You are uneducated.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Try simulating one explosion and see how big 5-psi radius goes.
Sorry reality does not work the way Pakistani are taught.

This site gives same casualties for both Rawalpindi and Mumbai using same nuke

 

[Shamsher1990]

It not really about targeting the bulk of the population. Who would waste a weapon on the poor masses, but rather go for the concentrations of rich, educated, skilled populations. Go after the key infrastructure; industries, electricity, universities, hubs of R&D, Military installations, and back up facilities, etc.

Focus Targeting was part of the counter-value and counter-force doctrines during the cold war. Depending on the threat profile and response, there was always an option of the SIOP; that targeted all the key military, civilian, and backup faculties of each other.

The question was about 'Saturating India with bombs' and 'destroying hindu civilization'. Both of the targets are actually unachieveable.

As far as taking high value target goes, even that is doubtful at Pakistan's capability. India is much more spread out and its second tier cities are numerous. Be mindful that India counter attack will kill more because population in Pakistan is concentrated in and around few cities. Also, places which can support agriculture in Pakistan are far and few due to Indus being the only source of water.

 

[randomradio]

Stop this non sense and you must know things about your religion. Prove your statement base on Vedic

Nothing nonsense about it. That's the way Hinduism is. Vedas is just one part of Hinduism anyway.

 

[Shamsher1990]

This site gives same casualties for both Rawalpindi and Mumbai using same nuke

try to find out how many nukes it will take to destroy a city like B'lore or Delhi. You will know its a fools errand to destroy even handful of cities using size of nukes Pakistan got.

 

[randomradio]

Dead???

In Kashmir as hindutva grows there is now overwhelming support for freedom and Pakistan

A few kids throwing stones? NO!!!

THE YOUTH OF KASHMIR REJECTING THE INDIAN STATE AND ITS MINIONS, YES!

Nah, it's just some kids throwing stones.

 

[Thorough Pro]

How many bullets do you need to take out an elephant?

We have 8500 towns and cities that represent 35% of our population. So you take a guess how many you need.

 

[randomradio]

One large nuke radiation can poison several small.cities FYI

Not really. Just a little bit around the explosion.

Where is your PhD thesis because to an American nuclear scientist who has even detonation of 100 heroshema nukes for within few days time frame.in large cities can cause nuclear winter and famine google ted talk

There are some who make up stuff just to scare people.

 

[FuturePAF]

Nope. Radioactive particles like Plutonium are quite heavy and they don't travel far. Also, farther they go, less their concentration become. Nuclear radiation at lower concentration is not exactly very harmful. Chernobyl caused much bigger distribution of nuclear particles worldwide than any bomb could do.

Also bigger bombs have to be cleaner. Because they are fusion based.
Dirty bombs are not useful from a tactical and military point of view.

There are also EMPs, a few dozen warheads would destroy key infrastructure even if you are not hurt by radiation. With all the key cities destroyed, the hordes of poor and sick people would overwhelm any response. Cars and trucks wouldn't start, controls and turbines at dams would be knocked out, highly complex transformers that take months to make would be destroyed at sub-stations. A nuclear war would be apocalyptic for both sides, especially if Pakistan gets the higher yield devices, and in the numbers described. how much more damage could "10,000 warheads at 15 megatons" do that 1000 one megaton warheads can't when they are knocking out the most key of infastructure. It about the 80/20 rule. 80% percent of the capability comes form 20% of the assets, while the rule of diminishing returns means the 1001st weapon will just add a little more destruction.

India is not as big a country as you think, and even the two major world powers have only 1550 warheads deployed.

 

[Shamsher1990]

How many bullets do you need to take out an elephant?

How many bullets it takes to take out a swarm of elephants. That is a more apt analogy.

 

[randomradio]

How many bullets do you need to take out an elephant?

You tell me.

 

[khanmubashir]

Nope. Radioactive particles like Plutonium are quite heavy and they don't travel far. Also, farther they go, less their concentration become. Nuclear radiation at lower concentration is not exactly very harmful. Chernobyl caused much bigger distribution of nuclear particles worldwide than any bomb could do.

Also bigger bombs have to be cleaner. Because they are fusion based.
Dirty bombs are not useful from a tactical and military point of view.

Sonny first knwo basics then talk about nukes there is no such thing as a pure fusion bomb even an h bomb generates bulk of its power from fission fusion is basically used to generate high energy neutron that can cause fission even in uranium 238 temper
As for plutonium particles not able to travel too far? ) winds can transport large grain size particles 1000z of km Chernobyl is still a dead zone u gave to wear special gear in the vicinity to avoid cancer and that's after 30 years and covering the reactor in 10000s tons of concrete

 

[Shamsher1990]

India is not as big a country as you think, and even the two major world powers have only 1550 warheads deployed.

Each of those weapons were several megatonnes.

A nuclear war would be apocalyptic for both sides, especially if Pakistan gets the higher yield devices, and in the numbers described.

And why do you think India will not get even higher yield weapons or will not be the first one to strike Pakistan?