Strikes on Pakistan can create nuclear holocaust: Feroz Khan

[Lil Mathew]

The major questions are.. Is there a chance of war and Who will start it??
There is a big chance of war.. Also unlike the previous wars most probably India will start the war.. Loc flare ups never start a war but incidents like kargil, parliament attack, mumbai attack can cause an another war.. These three incidents escalated the war situation to a new level.. So if such an incident repeated the nuclear wepons may not stop a war and the Indian political leaders may opt a economic suicide over political suicide.. Result both countries will suffer..

Next question is chance of nuclear war and who will start it?
A little chance because India will limit the war with some surgical attacks just 4 filling political agenda.. Then Pak will retaliate.. Also both countries will soon end the attacks under international pressure and fear of nuclear war.. If the nuclear war occur Pakistan will start it becos of the strategic imbalance.. Using a nuclear wepon first (even with strategic nuclear wepon) will attracts massive indian retaliation( to avoid next strike).. So Pak better opt massive first strike thanks to independent decision making capacity of its military .. But then also India will retaliate massively thanks to its big size, missile defence system and nuclear trid..
Resul both countries will suffer massive destruction.. Chance of Pakistan's survival in a full nuclear war is less compared to India..

It is considered that nuclear wepons are so powerful to avoid wars.. But the new scenario is terror attacks from Pak soil are stronger to start a war .. So better both countries must try hard to ensure that mumbai type terrorism will never repeat again..

 

[genmirajborgza786]

.

My take on this is different. Pakistan's biggest card is the threat of using nuclear weapons and hoping that it prevents India from exercising a military option. If India still goes ahead, essentially that bluff has been called and Pakistan is faced with very stark choices. Essentially whether Pakistan conventionally holds off Indian forces & whether it is willing to accept small losses & an essential drawing down of its use of non-state entities against India(I'm assuming here that an non-state actor provoked event would have caused the conflict). The alternative to that is suicide , whether or not Pakistan damages India. What would be a rational position for Pakistan to take there? Destroy the country in support of these non-state entities? That defies logic. Any Indian advance into Pakistan has already discounted the Pakistani nuclear threat, including a threatened use of tactical nukes. Any use of tactical nukes in such a situation would be counter-productive, would it not? Escalation button may simply no longer be in Pakistani hands, the level might not be to Pakistani liking.

Pakistan's main nuclear stockpile is not tactical but Strategic, no country is that immature to go nuclear for tactical purposes, it just doesn't make sense the main aim of a nuclear weapons program is deterrent plus acquiring the ability for Mutual Annihilations & for that a nation needs strategic weapons & not tactical, nasr is comparable to nirbhay & just like India's weapons program is much more then nirbhay , Pakistan's weapons program is also much more then nasr , it just that nasr have been talked about a lot unlike nirbhay , or got more exposure then its counter part , now as for India attacking Pakistan & calling the nuclear bluff well in that case my take on this would be, what if Pakistan actually goes along with the bluff ? what if Pakistan decides to go full scale nuclear ( massive strategic nuclear strikes) to end the stigma once & for all in a mutual assured annihilation , where by it goes down taking India along with it

for example surely India cannot defeat China nor match it militarily or economically & neither geographically, but it can surely go down taking China along with it

take India

China is 3 times the size of India geographically, much more stronger militarily, its defense budget of nearly $150 billion, its 7 times the size economically (in fact @ $8.53 trillion, its half the size of the U.S economy itself that too minus the debt problem) but still India even though it can't beat China it can surely go down taking China along with it

& now take Pakistan

India is 3 1/2 times the size of Pakistan geographically, much more stronger militarily, its defense budget of $ 46 billion, its 9 times the size economically (in but still Pakistan even though it can't beat India, it can surely go down taking India along with it

so the answer to your query is "Pakistan is to India , what India is to China" in both geographic & strategic terms

after all China doesn't accepts India in the same league as it-self, but none the less it cannot ignore the fact that India is player in the region

like wise
India doesn't accepts Pakistan in the same league as it-self, but none the less it cannot ignore the fact that Pakistan is an important player in the region

an analysis to the contrary will border the risks of underestimating some thing which can actually be quite lethal

 

[Kill-The-Enemy]

Pakistan is just building nukes, don't even know that it is not even capable of handling them...debts after debts... once USA leaves afghanistan your donation source will also end, then what will you do?

 

[Bang Galore]

Pakistan's main nuclear stockpile is not tactical but Strategic, no country is that immature to go nuclear for tactical purposes, it just doesn't make sense the main aim of a nuclear weapons program is deterrent plus acquiring the ability for Mutual Annihilations & for that a nation needs strategic weapons & not tactical, nasr is comparable to nirbhay & just like India's weapons program is much more then nirbhay , Pakistan's weapons program is also much more then nasr , it just that nasr have been talked about a lot unlike nirbhay , or got more exposure then its counter part , now as for India attacking Pakistan & calling the nuclear bluff well in that case my take on this would be, what if Pakistan actually goes along with the bluff ? what if Pakistan decides to go full scale nuclear ( massive strategic nuclear strikes) to end the stigma once & for all in a mutual assured annihilation , where by it goes down taking India along with it.......

....an analysis to the contrary will border the risks of underestimating some thing which can actually be quite lethal

I don't disagree but differ on what many here talk about using nukes loosely. Were India to pose a significant threat to Pakistani survival, I would assume that Pakistan would use all weapons at her disposal. What we are talking however is when that is not a concern. Those making the argument on tactical nukes are suggesting that Pakistan will lower the threshold of using nukes & will actually toy with mini nukes as a quasi-conventional weapon. I pointed out the fallacy in such an argument. Nuke use is thrown about too loosely here. To assume that they enemy will play be your rules after you have used nukes is the heights of foolishness.

P.S. If Pakistan went along with the bluff(I assume you mean strategic weapons) and used them when they were still not threatened with total destruction, we just have to go along with the notion that Pakistan has a death wish and that such a country is inherently incapable of rational decisions. With that logic, Pakistan could simply say tomorrow that if India doesn't give Kashmir & opt for voluntary disintegration, that it would use nukes.....we would have to just call it the luck of the draw & while it might well be game over for India, it certainly would be for Pakistan. There certainly won't be Pakistanis left in Pakistan to celebrate their "victory". There are no winners in a war gone nuclear, only losers.

 

[Cheetah786]

Israel only suffered only 3 casualties with Iron dome facing 100s of Hamas rockets. Their David's Sling is even effective against cruise missiles.

Anti-Missile system has changed the way war is being fought and Pakistan isn't prepared for such warfare.

L O L yeah you arent Israel and we arent Palestinians.

 

[Cheetah786]

Your skys have no protection unlike our BMDs. Technologically Pakistan fare worst compared to India in case of defence preparation. You will use nuke on India only in the case Pakistan wish for national self suicide.

Yes and no matter which part of pakistan you nuke you will take out parts of India

 

[Zarvan]

L O L yeah you arent Israel and we arent Palestinians.

and even Israel is not able to destroy all rockets which are of really bad quality most of them hit Israels are safe because most don't hit targets and also because their radars detect them and they turn on alarms and people enter bunkers

 

[Alpha1]

Yes they will retaliate if by than any of them is left to retaliate

Bro they have a sea based detterent also, even if we somehow destroy their nuclear delivery platforms, in the first strike they still have the sea based delivery platform .
On the brighter side we also have such capability
i.e. Babur launched from Agosta 90b

 

[Mav3rick]

And Pakistan has capability to integrate MIRV in there Donkey cart missiles.. By 2016 almost all major cities in India will get ABM..

50% success of BMD will save 50% cities ..

Such maiive, kiddish, foolish comment, what one will achive by blasting nuke 150 Km above a city?? the radiation will reach world wide.. America will rip the a$$ of such a$$-hole nation..

No, kid, a Nuclear blast around 150km's above your cities will render all electronics useless within seconds. It will not effect any other country.

Furthermore, even if any BMD is 99% effective......the single Nuclear Warhead that it will let through is all that matters.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

I don't disagree but differ on what many here talk about using nukes loosely. Were India to pose a significant threat to Pakistani survival, I would assume that Pakistan would use all weapons at her disposal. What we are talking however is when that is not a concern. Those making the argument on tactical nukes are suggesting that Pakistan will lower the threshold of using nukes & will actually toy with mini nukes as a quasi-conventional weapon. I pointed out the fallacy in such an argument. Nuke use is thrown about too loosely here. To assume that they enemy will play be your rules after you have used nukes is the heights of foolishness.

P.S. If Pakistan went along with the bluff(I assume you mean strategic weapons) and used them when they were still not threatened with total destruction, we just have to go along with the notion that Pakistan has a death wish and that such a country is inherently incapable of rational decisions. With that logic, Pakistan could simply say tomorrow that if India doesn't give Kashmir & opt for voluntary disintegration, that it would use nukes.....we would have to just call it the luck of the draw & while it might well be game over for India, it certainly would be for Pakistan. There certainly won't be Pakistanis left in Pakistan to celebrate their "victory". There are no winners in a war gone nuclear, only losers.

I agree with that, there wont be any winners in a nuclear conflict, also I am not a big fan of tactical weapons either, & neither are the policy makers of the strategic divisions of the country, after all Pakistan went the plutonium way to give weight to its strategic weapons (Fat Boy of nagasaki ?) yes one can allot 15-20 kt for a few TNT of 1-2 kiloton each but it does not go anything beyond that, in other words its just an extra pound being utilized nothing more, nothing less, the main stockpile is strategic whoever brings in TNT in that is just too naïve to comprehend the very purpose of a nuclear weapons program

 

[Mav3rick]

This is all that needs to be said in reply :

A Eunuch with a sense of humour.......not bad!

 

[third eye]

A Eunuch with a sense of humour.......not bad!

Eunuch ?

In that case Pakistan must be the only country in the world to have been ripped into two by Eunuchs .

 

[Bang Galore]

Furthermore, even if any BMD is 99% effective......the single Nuclear Warhead that it will let through is all that matters.

If a BMD was 99% effective, you would need a 100 missiles to hit one target..... the 99 that didn't get through would matter because it would reduce your options by those 99........

 

[Alpha1]

No, kid, a Nuclear blast around 150km's above your cities will render all electronics useless within seconds. It will not effect any other country.

Furthermore, even if any BMD is 99% effective......the single Nuclear Warhead that it will let through is all that matters.

HEMP or NEMP depends upon the yeild and the altitude. At such a high altitude a relatively medium detonation will send the continent back to the stone age

 

[genmirajborgza786]

No, kid, a Nuclear blast around 150km's above your cities will render all electronics useless within seconds. It will not effect any other country.

Furthermore, even if any BMD is 99% effective......the single Nuclear Warhead that it will let through is all that matters.

don't talk nonsense, one nuclear warhead will not do any significant damage to India, heck even japan survived two nukes strikes of Hiroshima & Nagasaki
to go nuclear it has to be full scale massive strike nothing less will do, as for BMD no they are not 99% accurate but 50% still they are a threat, but nonetheless their are ways to counter also