Pak does not have the ability to hurt India with just 100 nukes.
India has 8500 cities and towns. And these hold only 37% of India's population. The remaining 63% of India's population are in villages with populations less than 5000.
There is also a plan in motion, already begun, that will reduce the dependence on states like Punjab and Haryana to maintain the govt's food supply and improve India's agricultural output from many other states.
Most of the nukes will be used against India's military targets first. The main objective against cities will be the major metropolitan centers, which houses less than 2% of India's population, like Delhi and Mumbai. Otoh, the Soviet Union lost nearly 20% of their population during WW2.
And just like how rockets that launch satellites fail constantly, missiles also fail. So not all 100 nukes will be launched on India. Apart from that EW, BMD etc can make the missiles miss.
So no, you have no real chance at hurting India in a nuclear war. You need to get at least 5000 to 10000 nukes to obliterate India. And that's mainly done by destroying the 8500 cities and towns completely, with 80%+ casualties, even if it's still only 37% of the population.
Do you now see how difficult nuclear war is?
Otoh, the Indian Army will be running amok in Pakistan while the Pakistani Army will be fighting a losing battle. Look up Syria and see what's left of the country even though the war happening there is only at the level of an insurgency with less than 100k troops in total, not the millions that India is capable of sending into Pakistan in a long war.
According to most estimates Pak has more than 100 nukes...and based on ur response I assume that except for the titles u didn't bother to read the research papers I provided u.
The studies aren't about Pakistan using a 100 nukes on India. The study is based off both India and Pakistan exploding a total of 100 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs at each other...and still the effects are alarmingly hazardous.
So imagine what it would be if Pak/India used all of their nuclear arsenal. While the actual numbers of nuclear devices each country possesses have never been disclosed...most experts have suggested that both countries have somewhere between 100-150 nuclear weapons. This means that on the lower end if both have a 100 and launch those at each other that would be a total of 200. That's twice more than what the study is based on. Or if we go with the higher end then that would be 300...three times what the study is based on.
Also u should know that if 200 nuclear devices(still assuming them to be Hiroshima sized in terms of yield) go off in India/Pak scenario...the negative effects would be more than doubled
...and in the same manner if we go off the higher end of 150 each and 300 nukes go off the negative effects would more than triple. It is not a linear relationship bcuz the environmental effects come into play.
So all ur BS claims about Indian population urban vs rural areas and Pak's nukes not covering all of Indian landmass etc. go out the window. U clearly have no idea about how nukes work and all ur discussing somewhat barely touches on their primary effects. U should really read up on secondary and tertiary effects of nukes going off...though based on ur continued ignorance displayed here even after I provided u with research papers I doubt u would actually read anything.
Most information about nuclear weapons in such journals are made by anti-nuclear lobbies and people who have very little experience with nuclear weapons.
The reality is very different from what you hear in the news.
Yes so according to u I should ignore the published research papers of actual scientists who have dedicated their lives in these fields to first become experts and then dedicated more time for these studies, used computer models to arrive at their conclusions...all bcuz some internet keyboard warrior troll claims that these scientists are from anti-nuclear lobbies. What's ur qualification btw...why should I believe an iota of very ignorant claims u r typing here? Care to elaborate on ur educational background or ur actual field experience?
Get your information from people who actually work in the field.
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
The link u have provided is hilariously short on providing concrete evidence. First up what qualifications does the author of this book have for me to even consider his "opinions". How did he arrive at this conclusion? Is it based off of other research papers(from actual scientists)? If so where are the citations(since I would like to read them)?
Secondly this isn't a research paper...it says Chapter 1 and the book title at the very top...
U r the first person ever(who I've debated) that has tried to counter a bunch of research papers with some chapter from an obscure book.
Do u know the difference between a research paper published in a respected journal and a book that anyone can write(whatever they want in it) and publish it? This level of ignorance just makes me think I'm wasting my time arguing with u.
In any case I would ask u again...if Pakistan is so weak conventionally and unconventionally against India...what's stopping India from taking back its claimed land and destroying Pak?
There are only two possibilities...
1) ur claims are utter BS...and what's stopping India(and has stopped India in 2008 and the aftermath of Mumbai/Uri/etc attacks) is a credible threat of Pakistani nukes and a MAD scenario.
If the above isn't the case somehow...and we assume ur idiotic claims are true about India's "immense power" over Pak...and India has still not taken its claimed land from Pak then that only leaves the second option
2) India is impotent and cowardly
So which is it then?
