genmirajborgza786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
as far as I know no, its common sense you don't build tactical nukes but strategical nukes for mutual assured destructions capabilities
Strike Force Would Allow War on Two Fronts
- Thread starter indian_foxhound
- Start date
as far as I know no, its common sense you don't build tactical nukes but strategical nukes for mutual assured destructions capabilities
ares
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,483
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Haha.. yeah tell tht to USA and other international sources... besides im sure u 007 knows more abt our vintage nukes tht cant be delivered than Pakistan,USA etc...
Well,it is obvious that you don't have any sense mr Pak Nat.And one doesn't have to be a super spy or something to see the obvious.It is very well known fact that most of your devices are fabricated around U 235 cores and your Pu production capability came online at much later time.And also calculate what amount of U 235 is needed to produce a 20 kt fission device,what is your annual capacity and you should get a rough idea (assuming you can workout simple arithmatics which by the way seems to be unlikely for a madrasa boy).
Besides,it's also very well known that Uranium based weapon based weapons are very heavy and bulky and therefore can't be fitted to and delivered by BMs.Atleast it's a reality for whole world and I don't understand Pakistan should be an exceptional case.Or are you trying to imply that laws of Physics doesn't apply to your country??!!
genmirajborgza786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
wrong again because you forgot to add Pakistan administered Kashmir which is close to 30,800 sq mi (approx 79,800 sq km) , 796,095 sq km or approx 307,374 sq miles is the size of main land Pakistan
now 307,374 sq mi + 30,800 sq mi = 338,174 sq mi or approximately 875,700 sq km
DESERT FIGHTER
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 46,973
- Reaction score
- 95
- Country
- Location
Good God....dharamshalla kid.... is it tht hard for your to use the small grey matter ? U 235 cores?
... Instead of vomiting BS and pulling out facts frm ur behind google a bit... here let me spoon feed you:https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...8mzeMCbXwdFQJYnVr6Qwojg&bvm=bv.49478099,d.bGE
More more search Pak missiles info thread..
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
@All Are we all back to prattling about nuking one another. Fills the heart with warmth. @Hyperion Since you and I will be the only one's to survive this lamentable (not) tragedy I propose we cut up the lands as they be after the fools are done with each other.
IF the pronouncements made by the US and other International agencies are to be taken as a measure ( 4200 kg of unsafeguarded plutonium (800 kg of this already separated) enough for a 1000 warheads) then wrap your minds around what follows :-
India's and Pakistan's Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Inventories, end of 1999
India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities (scroll down to the section labeled as current arsenal and check out the figures for unsafe-guarded Plutonium.)
These figures are from the year 2000 but still relevant even without accounting for increase in capabilities on both sides.
The US as well as international agencies dig up estimates of warhead counts from the data they gather on available reserves of weapons grade or near weapons grade fissile material, not on the actual number of warheads. Usually such exercises are meant as a means to portray a country as a potential rogue state which is aggressively increasing its nuclear arsenal in a highly irresponsible manner which is detrimental to mankind and what not- we've been there so we'd know. A neat little strategy that more learned members like @Oscar sir can elucidate.
On topic:- Not particularly. Matching the troop presence at the two Chinese MACs in the concerned area was never the issue. Mobility and infrastructure is the issue. Throughout our bordering areas with Tibet we have an issue with horizontal routes, any transit between two points situated in the forward are requires us to head down south, avoid the mountainous terrain for the most, and then progress towards the destination. Their road heads terminate closer to the LAC, something that is not of any particular advantage during a shooting war, which allows their patrols to ingress and egress far more effectively from the border regions and even during shallow infiltration into our territory along with making it very easy to operate a logistics trail. The current infiltration was indeed aimed at pressing India into an agreement on a freeze on troop levels on the LAC, something which China had proposed recently and since then has been trying to bring forth to fruition through all means possible. As per the current plans and rate of construction it will take us at least 7-8 more years to bring up the infrastructure (all weather four lane metalled roads with drainage, road transit on a grid through the mountainous regions). The air-mobile component and the stress on combined arms offensive makes the new corps rather effective but it will still only serve as a stop gap in the long term.
IF the pronouncements made by the US and other International agencies are to be taken as a measure ( 4200 kg of unsafeguarded plutonium (800 kg of this already separated) enough for a 1000 warheads) then wrap your minds around what follows :-
India's and Pakistan's Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Inventories, end of 1999
India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities (scroll down to the section labeled as current arsenal and check out the figures for unsafe-guarded Plutonium.)
These figures are from the year 2000 but still relevant even without accounting for increase in capabilities on both sides.
The US as well as international agencies dig up estimates of warhead counts from the data they gather on available reserves of weapons grade or near weapons grade fissile material, not on the actual number of warheads. Usually such exercises are meant as a means to portray a country as a potential rogue state which is aggressively increasing its nuclear arsenal in a highly irresponsible manner which is detrimental to mankind and what not- we've been there so we'd know. A neat little strategy that more learned members like @Oscar sir can elucidate.
On topic:- Not particularly. Matching the troop presence at the two Chinese MACs in the concerned area was never the issue. Mobility and infrastructure is the issue. Throughout our bordering areas with Tibet we have an issue with horizontal routes, any transit between two points situated in the forward are requires us to head down south, avoid the mountainous terrain for the most, and then progress towards the destination. Their road heads terminate closer to the LAC, something that is not of any particular advantage during a shooting war, which allows their patrols to ingress and egress far more effectively from the border regions and even during shallow infiltration into our territory along with making it very easy to operate a logistics trail. The current infiltration was indeed aimed at pressing India into an agreement on a freeze on troop levels on the LAC, something which China had proposed recently and since then has been trying to bring forth to fruition through all means possible. As per the current plans and rate of construction it will take us at least 7-8 more years to bring up the infrastructure (all weather four lane metalled roads with drainage, road transit on a grid through the mountainous regions). The air-mobile component and the stress on combined arms offensive makes the new corps rather effective but it will still only serve as a stop gap in the long term.
Last edited by a moderator:
ares
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,483
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
I though Pakistanis here were arguing, that since all their major rivers are flowing from Kashmir, nuking Kashmir will be disaster for them and sure as hell Indians will not nuke their own country. ...then why include Kashmir in a nuclear equation?
I though Pakistanis here were arguing, that since all their major rivers are flowing from Kashmir, nuking Kashmir will be disaster for them and sure as hell Indians will not nuke their own country. ...then why include Kashmir in a nuclear equation?
ptltejas
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The Indian government this week reportedly paved the way for the creation of a new military corps of 50,000 troops near its border with China. If correct, analysts say this is a sign that New Delhi, which has been largely focused on its frontier with Pakistan, is now shifting its attention to the long, disputed Sino-Indian boundary.
Government sources were quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying a new mountain strike corps costing nearly $11 billion over seven years, was approved by Indias cabinet committee on security Wednesday. The committee is headed by Indias Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The force will be headquartered at Panagarh, in the eastern state of West Bengal, the news agency reported. Attempts to confirm these reports with Indias ministries of defense and external affairs were not successful.
The creation of a strike corps would give India thousands of war-ready soldiers, trained and equipped to respond rapidly to a military threat, stationed close to the border between India and China, known as the Line of Actual Control.
Analysts say it would take five to seven years for such a force to be formed fully, as large numbers of soldiers would need to be recruited and trained for combat at high altitudes and in mountainous terrains.
The process will be incremental, said Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor in Chinese studies at the New-Delhi based Jawaharlal Nehru University. There wont be large-scale training, because there is no immediate threat.
For decades, relations between India and China have been characterized by mistrust. The tensions boiled over into a war between the two in 1962, which China won by gaining control over a large swathe of Indian territory known as Aksai China.
Beijing is still in control of the 38,000 square kilometers of land, but Indian maps show Aksai Chin as a part of Jammu and Kashmir, its northernmost state. China also claims 90,000 square kilometers of land in Arunachal Pradesh, a state in Indias northeast.
Neither nation has shown any inclination to return to armed conflict since, but Indias decision to create a strike corps which analysts say has been in the offing for over two years reflects New Delhis growing concern that Beijing is becoming increasingly assertive in its territorial claims.
In April, Indian authorities accused Chinese troops of pitching tents inside Indias territory in the remote Himalayan region of Ladakh, resulting in a three-week standoff on the disputed border.
Mr. Kondapalli said transgressions by patrolling Chinese soldiers have become more frequent in recent years, increasing to nearly one a day, a signal of heightened border activity by Indias neighbor.
China has steadily developed infrastructure along the disputed border with India, which allows for the smooth movement of goods and troops. It has also boosted its military spending in an attempt to rival the U.S. and to fight territorial disputes with a number of East Asian countries including Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea.
In recent years, there has been a shift in Indias perspective towards China, said Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. India now sees China as an immediate strategic challenge.
For decades, India remained focused on Pakistan, with whom it has fought three wars since independence from Britain. New Delhi has also deployed large numbers of troops on its borders with Pakistan to stem infiltration of militants into India, particularly after 10 Pakistani militants laid siege to Mumbai over three days in 2008, killing more than 160 people.
Now, India is now preparing for a two-front conflict, said Mr. Kondapalli.
India has fought wars with China and Pakistan, but not against both countries at once, he added. China and Pakistan are regional allies.
New Delhi has also grown concerned about Chinas growing influence with other countries in the neighborhood. Chinese investments in naval bases and infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal have led to fears in India that Beijing is building a string of pearls to encircle it.
Still, India has expanded economic ties with Beijing, its largest trading partner. Bilateral trade has grown to $68 billion and the countries hope to boost it to $100 billion by 2015. India runs a large trade deficit of $40 billion with China, up from just $1 billion in 2002, according to data from Indias Ministry of Commerce.
Diplomatic ties between the two Asian giants have also grown. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited India in May, and Indias Defense Minister A.K. Antony traveled to China a month later, the first such visit in seven years.
Analysts say in the coming years, relations between India and China will have to be a balancing act between increasing investment and strengthening diplomatic relations, while managing the long-running border disputes.
Strike Force Would Allow
Both are Laughing. What is going on in their mind?
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
They are both thinking about everything besides the border dispute.
Li Keqiang is supposed to be more "friendly" to India anyway, compared to other Chinese leaders.
ptltejas
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I Love this man. The Real Leader. Not Mao. Deng xiaoping is more better and best than Mao. He was true leader of people and Zongguo(China). Just Salute to him. I think there are theree leaders One is Abraham linkan, John Kenedy and Deng xiaoping who take the great steps to do for china even chinese communalism gave him lost pain. Long live Deng.
And we Indian have this leader who change the life of Indians and India. the non Gandhian Leader. The True Hero of India
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
There is no limit to the suffering for any,all 3 will be back in stone age.Except pak will not have scope to recover due to small size.While india china,still have huge rural populations relatively immune.There will be mass environmental disorder and starvation though even in rural areas,so this is nightmare scenario.
As for out KT devices i think ur talking about 15-20 yrs ago.After nuke deal we have been making far larger weapons.A plateau is no buffer to a ballistic missile...Developing countries's economies are centred around urban centres.
China can flatten Dehli from Tibet with artillery rockets from the WS platform. Does India have a super duper magic shield that would intercept waves after waves of artillery rockets in the hundreds if not thousands in a full out war?
India still don't have a thermo-nuke or have tested a miniturized warhead or an operable mobile platform to launch from. Its nuclear "stockpile" is almost a sitting duck waiting to be wiped out with a first strike. The chinese have miniturized warhead so they can nuke India with even cruise missiles...
India still don't have a thermo-nuke or have tested a miniturized warhead or an operable mobile platform to launch from. Its nuclear "stockpile" is almost a sitting duck waiting to be wiped out with a first strike. The chinese have miniturized warhead so they can nuke India with even cruise missiles...
India already can intercept missiles launched from a range closer than 2000 km, and capability to intercept missiles launched from 5000 km is in an advanced stage of testing.
IMO, PRC will be foolish to threaten India with a nuclear threat, when it knows that India already has an advanced second strike capabilities to completely wipe-out PRC.
In terms of bombable area, PRC is much less than India, about 2 million sq km of PRC contains over 90% of its population and economy... about 100 nukes (one each for a square 140x140km) will overwhelm the entire bombable area of PRC.
A nuke threat to India is a non-starter.
Why would India "wish" to fight a war at all? And its exactly for that reason, capability is essential.
Capability is criticial to deterrence.
If you have overwhelming deterrence, you will never need to use that capability. That's all.
As an example, the "tent" wasn't rolled back without India mobilizing a single soldier ... but the key was that PRC understood, India has full capability to build up with at lightening pace, with a massive transportation fleet, which PLA can't match.
The best option PRC was left with was to roll back quitely, with a face saver.. which they did.
That's what the value of deterrence is. It prevents wars.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
