PDA

View Full Version : Indian Mujahideen wanted to nuke Surat, Yasin Bhatkal tells cops



Pages : [1] 2

commander
30 Dec 13,, 08:43
Holy cow .. Can this actually happen ? :eek:

Indian Mujahideen wanted to nuke Surat, Yasin Bhatkal tells cops - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-Mujahideen-wanted-to-nuke-Surat-Yasin-Bhatkal-tells-cops/articleshow/28116663.cms)


NEW DELHI: The prospect of terror organisations getting their hands on a nuclear device has long concerned both security agencies and thriller writers. Now, it seems Indian Mujahideen (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Indian-Mujahideen) India chief Ahmad Zarar Siddibappa alias Yasin Bhatkal (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Yasin-Bhatkal) too was thinking along similar lines. Bhatkal recently told interrogators that he was planning to set off a nuclear bomb in Surat, according to sources.

Bhatkal was arrested on August 27 in Pokhra, Nepal and has been constantly questioned by the NIA (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/NIA), Intelligence Bureau and police of several states. TOI has accessed the interrogation report.

Bhatkal told the interrogators that he had asked his Pakistan-based boss, Riyaz Bhatkal (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Riyaz-Bhatkal), over phone whether the latter could arrange a small "nuclear bomb". According to him, Riyaz responded, "Anything can be arranged in Pakistan".

"Riyaz told me that attacks can be done with nuclear bombs. I requested him to look for one nuclear bomb for Surat," Yasin told the officials.

"Riyaz told me Muslims would also die in that (nuclear bomb blast), to which I said that we would paste posters in mosques asking every Muslim to quietly evacuate their families from the city," Yasin said, according to the report.

However, the plan could not be initiated since Yasin was tracked by the IB and arrested in August.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo/28116847.cms

Surat has always been on Yasin's radar and he had also played an important role in preparing 27 bombs along with Atif Ameen in 2008 when serial blasts took place in Delhi, Jaipur and Ahmedabad.

Yasin himself was the bomb expert of Indian Mujahideen and the outfit's bomb-making capabilities have been affected after his arrest, say intelligence officials.

The IM leader has also given details of army level training of IM cadres and other terrorists in Pakistan, which shows that advanced training is given to terrorists with the help of Pakistan. Elaborating on training schedule for IM members in Pakistan, Yasin said, "Training included morning PT, weapon handling and explosive/IED training, pistols to revolvers, AK-47 etc. Indian weapons like LMG, SLR and sniper rifles and so forth".

Yasin further stated that "we were also exposed to handling of explosives like PE3A (black colour explosive), C4, C3, TNT, etc. Besides this, we were also exposed to fabrication of IEDs with the help of ammonium nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, gelatin stick and so forth. This training schedule was for 50 days".

For all the plans and active operations, Yasin remained in touch with Riyaz Bhatkal. Riyaz, according to sources, had sent Yasin Rs 17 lakh in 2013 out of which his personal expenses every month were Rs 25,000.

A senior intelligence official said, "We have been coming across different kinds of IEDs over the years. The reason is that terrorists are undergoing all kind of advanced army level training in Pakistan with the help of ISI. And if terror outfits have access to nuclear bombs, then it is very dangerous for us (India)".


How possible is this situation. What might have been the implications if it had happened?

sated buddha
30 Dec 13,, 08:54
But why Surat?

commander
30 Dec 13,, 08:56
But why Surat?

Maybe as a revenge for the 2002 riots ?

sated buddha
30 Dec 13,, 08:59
Maybe as a revenge for the 2002 riots ?

Of course. But why Surat? Why not Ahmedabad? Or Vadodara?

commander
30 Dec 13,, 09:03
Of course. But why Surat? Why not Ahmedabad? Or Vadodara?

Could be exactly for that reason maybe? If there are high profile targets nobody would suspect that surat would be selected for such an act. Or maybe it was logistically easy? Others who know the geography of the place well should be able to provide a better reason.

sated buddha
30 Dec 13,, 09:21
Could be exactly for that reason maybe? If there are high profile targets nobody would suspect that surat would be selected for such an act. Or maybe it was logistically easy? Others who know the geography of the place well should be able to provide a better reason.

My point is that demographically Surat is much more Muslim-dense that either Ahmedabad or Vadodara, and second only to Ahmeabad in terms of total numbers of Muslims amongst major Gujarat cities. Weird way of trying to get revenge.

The bit about posters in mosques is a lie. There is no way the IM would have risked a leak in an operation of this sort.

Simply and brutally put, they were willing to nuke half a million Muslims to avenge the death of 790.

Agnostic Muslim
30 Dec 13,, 16:17
"According to him, Riyaz responded, "Anything can be arranged in Pakistan"

Utter nonsense - even if the account was true (and not the usual Indian media exaggerations and hysteria when it comes to implicating Pakistani State institutions in anything and everything), Riyaz was stringing Bhatkal along. Even the Libyans/Iranians could not obtain an actual functioning nuclear weapon from AQ Khan's black market bazaar (and oversight of the nuclear program has been increased beyond recognition since then).

lemontree
03 Jan 14,, 04:23
Of course. But why Surat? Why not Ahmedabad? Or Vadodara?

Two reasons:-
- Surat is world's diamond capital with over 90% of the world's diamons are cut and polished here.
- Surat is the Manchester of India (textile capital of India).

The city is an economic power house that generates income of over USD 25 billion.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 14,, 05:51
How long would it take Indian nuclear forensics to determine the nuke is of Pakistani ... or of Chinese origins? ... And would Pakistan or China allow it?

commander
03 Jan 14,, 06:09
How long would it take Indian nuclear forensics to determine the nuke is of Pakistani ... or of Chinese origins? ... And would Pakistan or China allow it?

Sir , I might be wrong but IMHO India won't need permission to conduct a forensic
Analysis trying to identify the source of the Nuke. All hell would break lose at the time and I am pretty sure Nukes would be on it's way to all of Pakistan's important cities if not atleast the capitol city.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 14,, 06:34
And if it was an Iranian nuke?

commander
03 Jan 14,, 06:36
And if it was an Iranian nuke?

The retaliatory move would always be directed towards Pakistan, like I said I am not 100% percent sure that is what will happen , but IMO Iran doesn't have much of a beef with India..

sated buddha
03 Jan 14,, 06:48
The more I think about it the more I am baffled. Not so much about the news that the IM wanted to nuke its own countrymen. But by the the plan to quietly evacuate half a million people out of a city. At first my reaction was that it was a lie. No terrorist organisation would risk a leak before a hit on this scale. They had to have decided to condemn 500,000 fellow Muslims to death, and were willing to live with that.

Then I thought some more. And it hit me. Its not the motives or planning of the IM that should be a cause for concern. But the thinking that they could actually get away with it. The thinking that half a million Indians will simply walk out of a city quietly without talking to any neighbor or friend or colleague, be they Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Buddhist or Jain or Jew. Without a single one of them going to the authorities, the police.

That more than anything is what the IM has gifted its community. The blanket of co-conspirators.

commander
03 Jan 14,, 06:54
The more I think about it the more I am baffled. Not so much about the news that the IM wanted to nuke its own countrymen. But by the the plan to quietly evacuate half a million people out of a city. At first my reaction was that it was a lie. No terrorist organisation would risk a leak before a hit on this scale. They had to have decided to condemn 500,000 fellow Muslims to death, and were willing to live with that.

Then I thought some more. And it hit me. Its not the motives or planning of the IM that should be a cause for concern. But the thinking that they could actually get away with it. The thinking that half a million Indians will simply walk out of a city quietly without talking to any neighbor or friend or colleague, be they Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Buddhist or Jain or Jew. Without a single one of them going to the authorities, the police.

That more than anything is what the IM has gifted its community. The blanket of co-conspirators.

We are talking about ruthless terrorists who wants to kill people to make a point, so what does it matter to them if it was Hindus or Muslims. This sure to me doesn't sound like an empty round. They must have really had something going on.

sated buddha
03 Jan 14,, 06:57
We are talking about ruthless terrorists who wants to kill people to make a point, so what does it matter to them if it was Hindus or Muslims. This sure to me doesn't sound like an empty round. They must have really had something going on.

I'm sorry but I do not buy into the line that terrorism has no religion, if that is your line of reasoning. That line is as apologist as they come.

lemontree
03 Jan 14,, 07:31
And if it was an Iranian nuke?

Sir, irrespective, the nuke can be from Mars for all we care.
The retaliation would be immediate and Pakistan would cease to exist within the hour.

Blademaster
03 Jan 14,, 08:41
And if it was an Iranian nuke?

That is highly unlikely as a British nuke landing on an American city on purpose.

Firestorm
03 Jan 14,, 12:40
How long would it take Indian nuclear forensics to determine the nuke is of Pakistani ... or of Chinese origins?
We are assuming that India has the ability to do that. Besides, the Pakistanis have refined "plausible deniability" into an art form. So far, it has worked, in the sense that none of their actions have invited retaliation. A nuke is pushing it of course.

Double Edge
03 Jan 14,, 12:59
Holy cow .. Can this actually happen ? :eek:

Indian Mujahideen wanted to nuke Surat, Yasin Bhatkal tells cops - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-Mujahideen-wanted-to-nuke-Surat-Yasin-Bhatkal-tells-cops/articleshow/28116663.cms)

How possible is this situation.
The word you're looking for is probable. Not possible. Anything may be possible. To say something is possible means nothing.

As to how probable, low, extremely so. How would they source it.

The only time a Pak nuke goes lose is if the paks themselves lose control and this will only happen during an all out war. If you accept that prospect is equally low then where does this so called nuke originate from. No where. There's been a lot of scare mongering articles about how Pak nukes could go lose. During the cold war it was about accidental launch.

This article is IM bravado. He's trying to show IM matters. But IM is a ragtag group without any significant victories to their name. Death counts in the low tens. The so called serial blasts in Bangalore 2008 was a joke in comparison to much more lethal ones that happened elsewhere in the country. We hope they stay that way.

commander
03 Jan 14,, 13:11
The word you're looking for is probable. Not possible. Anything may be possible. To say something is possible means nothing.

As to how probable, low, extremely so. How would they source it.

The only time a Pak nuke goes lose is if the paks themselves lose control and this will only happen during an all out war. If you accept that prospect is equally low then where does this so called nuke originate from. No where. There's been a lot of scare mongering articles about how Pak nukes could go lose. During the cold war it was about accidental launch.

This article is IM bravado. He's trying to show IM matters. But IM is a ragtag group without any significant victories to their name. Death counts in the low tens. The so called serial blasts in Bangalore 2008 was a joke in comparison to much more lethal ones that happened elsewhere in the country. We hope they stay that way.

Although I agree that IM may not as deadly as other terror outfits it is kind of scary to see if IM could plan even in paper such attack how long will it take for bigger terror outfits like LeT and the likes to conduct such an attack? Also we have witnessed the PNS Mehran attack in 2011 where TTP were able to hold the Naval base for sometime eventually killing 18 soldiers.

PNS Mehran attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Mehran_attack)

Although it is highly unlikely since Pakistan know if an event like that to happen then it would be an all out war against them.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 14,, 13:11
That is highly unlikely as a British nuke landing on an American city on purpose.Iran is the only country where their nuclear materials are not up to par with securtiy. It's a hell of a lot easier to steal an Iranian nuke than a Pakistani one.

Firestorm
03 Jan 14,, 13:15
Iran is the only country where their nuclear materials are not up to par with securtiy. It's a hell of a lot easier to steal an Iranian nuke than a Pakistani one.
The Iranians have fissile material but no actual nukes. If that story by Yasin Bhatkal is not complete fantasy (which it probably is), then there can be only one country where the IM would have been looking to get a nuke.

commander
03 Jan 14,, 13:18
Iran is the only country where their nuclear materials are not up to par with securtiy. It's a hell of a lot easier to steal an Iranian nuke than a Pakistani one.

Sir, if I am not wrong the recent fiasco that happened because of Stuxnet worm has setback Iranian nuclear program to more than two decades if not more.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 14,, 13:19
I'm convinced that they have put a device together. They have gone through all the testing, including a zero yield device. To do that, they had have fashion a working nuke just to make sure all the parts are right.

cdude
03 Jan 14,, 16:07
Sir, irrespective, the nuke can be from Mars for all we care.
The retaliation would be immediate and Pakistan would cease to exist within the hour.

And you wonder why Pakistanis hate India.

No, no need to lecture me on what they did to you. Been through that dozens of times on WAB.

Firestorm
03 Jan 14,, 16:22
And you wonder why Pakistanis hate India.

No, no need to lecture me on what they did to you. Been through that dozens of times on WAB.

They have the same policy towards India. And unlike India they don't follow NFU.

commander
03 Jan 14,, 16:39
And you wonder why Pakistanis hate India.

No, no need to lecture me on what they did to you. Been through that dozens of times on WAB.

Please dont try to preach us why some X country hates us , we know our enemies well and know how to play accordingly. Likewise if required we can also give a zillion reasons why a LOT of countries hate your's.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jan 14,, 18:57
Well, if this particular 'report' is accurate, the 'Indian Mujahideen' stood a better chance of securing nuclear materials/weapons from within India, instead of Pakistan:

India ranks below Pakistan in n-safety index - The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-ranks-below-pakistan-in-nsafety-index/article5557184.ece)

That said, there is plenty of room for disagreement over the metrics used to compile the scores and how those metrics were scored individually.

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 19:08
And you wonder why Pakistanis hate India.

No, no need to lecture me on what they did to you. Been through that dozens of times on WAB.

And you wonder why we call you a troll. By the way, where are the pictures and videos of Tibetan roads that I ordered?

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 19:21
Please dont try to preach us why some X country hates us , we know our enemies well and know how to play accordingly. Likewise if required we can also give a zillion reasons why a LOT of countries hate your's.

Only those who never been in some place and met the locals caan hate entire country or people.

Captain Worley
09 Jan 14,, 20:20
They have gone through all the testing, including a zero yield device. To do that, they had have fashion a working nuke just to make sure all the parts are right.

Really? How the heck did I miss that?

Dang US meida...

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 22:37
All hell would break lose at the time and I am pretty sure Nukes would be on it's way to all of Pakistan's important cities if not atleast the capitol city.

Are you sure? We have let 26/11 slide by and countless others before that.

Blademaster
09 Jan 14,, 22:58
I'm convinced that they have put a device together. They have gone through all the testing, including a zero yield device. To do that, they had have fashion a working nuke just to make sure all the parts are right.

But no delivery vehicle or working fuse. Their program is not as advanced as Pakistan's or India's or China's. It may turn out to be a dud like NK's.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 14,, 23:04
Any 747 with a kamakazie crew can be used as a delivery vehicle. The Swiss found the CHAGAI-I designs to be workable. Therefore, it is the engineering and quality control that was Pakistan's problem.

In either case, it still does not take away from the fact that Iranian nuclear materials are nowhere as secured as those of the nuclear weapons powers, NPT or not.

Blademaster
09 Jan 14,, 23:16
Any 747 with a kamakazie crew can be used as a delivery vehicle. The Swiss found the CHAGAI-I designs to be workable. Therefore, it is the engineering and quality control that was Pakistan's problem.

In either case, it still does not take away from the fact that Iranian nuclear materials are nowhere as secured as those of the nuclear weapons powers, NPT or not.

So did NK. They got a copy of the Chagai-I designs but they couldn't make it work. What makes you think Iranians won't have the same problem?

As for the 747 with a kamikazie, your original premise was that India wouldn't know where the nuke came from. Well a 747 coming from Iran would pretty much establish quickly where the nuke came from and I find it very skeptical that an Iranian team can successfully move a nuke out of the country without triggering any radiation alerts into another country and plant it in a 747 plane and detonate it in India. Such cargo would immediately raise a lot of suspicions and would require constant Iranian monitoring which would be very hard to conceal. The Sum of All Fears doomsday scenario is not logistically feasible because too many things can go wrong in the middle of the transit and chances of discovery are high.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 14,, 23:26
So did NK. They got a copy of the Chagai-I designs but they couldn't make it work.CHAGAI-I are uranium based as are the Iranians pursuit of nukes. They're going the enriched uranium route. The NKs are plutonium based and therefore, cannot be using CHAGAI-I designs.


What makes you think Iranians won't have the same problem?I don't know but it does not reduce their confidence that they have a working device.


As for the 747 with a kamikazie, your original premise was that India wouldn't know where the nuke came from.Actually, my premise is that India can determine any weapons origin through nuclear forensics. If not, the world can. What I was challenging was the automatic assumption is that it had to be a Pakistani nuke.


Well a 747 coming from Iran would pretty much establish quickly where the nuke came from and I find it very skeptical that an Iranian team can successfully move a nuke out of the country without triggering any radiation alerts into another country and plant it in a 747 plane and detonate it in India.We're getting way off topic. Iran has at most 2 nukes and really cannot be sure that they would work or not. If they do decide to use them, there is no way for them to plausibly deny that it's their weapon once nuclear forensics get through with them.

What we're talking about here is that a weapon has more than one delivery means. Whether those means survive the penetration is another story.

I raised the possibility once of a Pakistani-Iranian nuclear war based on what happened in Afghanistan. Do recall that the Pakistani Allied Taliban killed several Iranian agents and the Iranians massed 10,000 troops on the border in preparation for war.

In such a scenario, it is not inconceivable for a suicide Iranian AF package doing fighter sweeps to clear the way for a kamakazie 747.

Double Edge
09 Jan 14,, 23:55
Although I agree that IM may not as deadly as other terror outfits it is kind of scary to see if IM could plan even in paper such attack how long will it take for bigger terror outfits like LeT and the likes to conduct such an attack? Also we have witnessed the PNS Mehran attack in 2011 where TTP were able to hold the Naval base for sometime eventually killing 18 soldiers.

PNS Mehran attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNS_Mehran_attack)

Although it is highly unlikely since Pakistan know if an event like that to happen then it would be an all out war against them.
LeT is not required when the Pak military can do the job with more certainty.

Think of this article as a PR coup, the guy's in custody and he got the Indian media to spread his propaganda :biggrin:

IM suck at blowing things up so now we must put up with an imaginary event ?

lemontree
10 Jan 14,, 06:01
And you wonder why Pakistanis hate India.

No, no need to lecture me on what they did to you. Been through that dozens of times on WAB.

Your ignorance is evident. Chill mate.

lemontree
10 Jan 14,, 06:05
LeT is not required when the Pak military can do the job with more certainty.

Think of this article as a PR coup, the guy's in custody and he got the Indian media to spread his propaganda :biggrin:

IM suck at blowing things up so now we must put up with an imaginary event ?

The other aspect is that whom so ever nukes us, Pakistan gets our retaliatory counter-strike. Period.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jan 14,, 20:27
The other aspect is that whom so ever nukes us, Pakistan gets our retaliatory counter-strike. Period.
That makes absolutely no sense in the context of India's declared 'No First Use' policy - if India does not care who nuked her before launching nuclear weapons at Pakistan, then:

1. Pakistan adjusts her nuclear use policy to launch nuclear weapons at India at the first sign of a nuclear attack in India, irrespective of who caused it, in order to 'strike first' and preempt what you described above

2. India's 'No first Use' nuclear weapons declaration is worthless because, in the case of a nuclear strike in India that did not originate from Pakistan, a policy of 'Pakistan gets our retaliatory counter-strike' means that India does in fact subscribe to a 'blind First Strike with Nuclear Weapons Policy' with respect to Pakistan

lemontree
13 Jan 14,, 06:38
That makes absolutely no sense in the context of India's declared 'No First Use' policy - if India does not care who nuked her before launching nuclear weapons at Pakistan, then:

1. Pakistan adjusts her nuclear use policy to launch nuclear weapons at India at the first sign of a nuclear attack in India, irrespective of who caused it, in order to 'strike first' and preempt what you described above

2. India's 'No first Use' nuclear weapons declaration is worthless because, in the case of a nuclear strike in India that did not originate from Pakistan, a policy of 'Pakistan gets our retaliatory counter-strike' means that India does in fact subscribe to a 'blind First Strike with Nuclear Weapons Policy' with respect to Pakistan

Would you expect India to care about international legalities, with one of its cities wiped out?
Do you seriously think that Pakistan will be allowed to get away with the denyability option?

antimony
13 Jan 14,, 08:26
Would you expect India to care about international legalities, with one of its cities wiped out?
Do you seriously think that Pakistan will be allowed to get away with the denyability option?

Hate to point it out, but they got away in 2008

lemontree
13 Jan 14,, 09:12
Hate to point it out, but they got away in 2008
2008 was not a nuclear attack on India.
We did not retaliate because we had an oaf called Deepak Kappor as COAS.

sated buddha
13 Jan 14,, 10:14
Hate to point it out, but they got away in 2008

160 odd versus maybe a milion dead. I think a comparison is stretching the band well past break point.

Agnostic Muslim
13 Jan 14,, 15:57
Would you expect India to care about international legalities, with one of its cities wiped out?
Do you seriously think that Pakistan will be allowed to get away with the denyability option?
My comment had nothing to do with 'international legalities' - I merely pointed out to you the fact that an Indian government position similar to yours renders India's 'No First Use' policy (WRT Nuclear Weapons) meaningless.

I was also pointing out to you that any such policy on the part of India (a nuclear first strike on Pakistan irrespective of the origin of a nuclear attack on India) would result in a Pakistani policy that called for launching as large a nuclear strike as possible against India at the first sign of a WMD attack on India to preempt any possible 'Indian nuclear strike on Pakistan'.

India's NFU policy essentially becomes a First Use policy, with respect to Pakistan.

sated buddha
13 Jan 14,, 16:35
India's NFU policy essentially becomes a First Use policy, with respect to Pakistan.

But there is an important caveat. We have to eat a nuke first.

Agnostic Muslim
13 Jan 14,, 16:48
But there is an important caveat. We have to eat a nuke first.
In the case described by Lemontree, India would launch nuclear weapons at Pakistan irrespective of whose nuke 'India ate', which means that the Indian nuclear policy WRT Pakistan, under certain conditions, is a 'First Use of nuclear weapons' policy.

sated buddha
13 Jan 14,, 16:50
In the case described by Lemontree, India would launch nuclear weapons at Pakistan irrespective of whose nuke 'India ate', which means that the Indian nuclear policy WRT Pakistan, under certain conditions, is a 'First Use of nuclear weapons' policy.

Its not first use if we've already eaten a nuke. Why is Pakistan special or deserving of a sub clause to the rule?

Agnostic Muslim
13 Jan 14,, 17:48
Its not first use if we've already eaten a nuke.
If it is not a Pakistani nuke and India still intends to nuke Pakistan, then yes, it is a 'First Use of nuclear weapons policy' WRT Pakistan.


Why is Pakistan special or deserving of a sub clause to the rule?
There is nothing 'special' here - I am merely pointing out to you that an irresponsible policy such as the one described by LT essentially ensures a full nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan given that Pakistan would launch her nuclear weapons at India at the first sign of a WMD attack in India in order to preempt the ridiculous policy outlined by LT.

sated buddha
13 Jan 14,, 17:55
If it is not a Pakistani nuke and India still intends to nuke Pakistan, then yes, it is a 'First Use of nuclear weapons policy' WRT Pakistan.

A policy of this nature does not come with sub riders. What is the meaning of "wrt pakistan"? We get nuked, we nuke you out of existence. We wait to get nuked first. We do not nuke first. No first use. Can't be that difficult to get.


There is nothing 'special' here - I am merely pointing out to you that an irresponsible policy such as the one described by LT essentially ensures a full nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan given that Pakistan would launch her nuclear weapons at India at the first sign of a WMD attack in India in order to preempt the ridiculous policy outlined by LT.

That I assume is a given. Given a first nuke on Indian soil, it would be a race to who gets more nukes in the air towards the other. And who can eat those nukes and still remain standing. What is a given as LT mentioned is that you go out permanently. We will not be waiting for forensics if that's the plaintive if non vocalized plea in the background here.

And please, there is nothing ridiculous about the policy outlined by LT.

What is ridiculous is a Pakistani expecting India to eat a nuke and then opt for a graded response.

guicho80
13 Jan 14,, 18:25
What is ridiculous about the policy outlined by LT? Seems pretty sensible to me. Ridiculous is the notion that India should make patient inquiry over the provenance of mushroom clouds while the nuclear-armed sworn enemy across the border sits unmolested. You fellows must live together or burn together. Hopefully you find a way to manage the former.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jan 14,, 18:38
It's not going to happen. Pakistan ain't stupid enough to give a nuke to an illiterrate peasant.

antimony
13 Jan 14,, 18:41
160 odd versus maybe a milion dead. I think a comparison is stretching the band well past break point.


2008 was not a nuclear attack on India.
We did not retaliate because we had an oaf called Deepak Kappor as COAS.

So what? A nuke attack deserves a nuke response. A lesser attack certainly deserves a lesser response, like blowing up some of their FB command centers. Our military response started and ended with a dossier.

sated buddha
13 Jan 14,, 18:45
So what? A nuke attack deserves a nuke response. A lesser attack certainly deserves a lesser response, like blowing up some of their FB command centers. Our military response started and ended with a dossier.

If it means something, for me personally that was the start of the end of the Congress as far as I am concerned.

antimony
13 Jan 14,, 18:48
If it means something, for me personally that was the start of the end of the Congress as far as I am concerned.

You mean the Emergency wasn't enough :cool:

I know what you mean. For us it is choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. I myself voted BJP during Vajpayee's tenure, but was glad they got thrown out after that. I am hoping for Modi this time, with the tempering influence of coalition politics.

ajhax
13 Jan 14,, 20:27
2008 was not a nuclear attack on India.
We did not retaliate because we had an oaf called Deepak Kappor as COAS.

Just curious. Why you say so about Deepak Kapoor?

Agnostic Muslim
13 Jan 14,, 21:30
A policy of this nature does not come with sub riders. What is the meaning of "wrt pakistan"? We get nuked, we nuke you out of existence. We wait to get nuked first. We do not nuke first. No first use. Can't be that difficult to get.
But If Pakistan did not nuke India and India did in fact choose to nuke Pakistan, then India is 'nuking' Pakistan first. It can't be 'that difficult' to understand the point that a nuclear attack on another nation, without any idea of whether or not that nation was responsible for whatever it is that drove a nuclear response from India, is a foolish and irresponsible position.


That I assume is a given. Given a first nuke on Indian soil, it would be a race to who gets more nukes in the air towards the other. And who can eat those nukes and still remain standing. What is a given as LT mentioned is that you go out permanently. We will not be waiting for forensics if that's the plaintive if non vocalized plea in the background here.
If Pakistan does actually launch the first nuke at India, it will not be an isolated single weapon.


And please, there is nothing ridiculous about the policy outlined by LT.
The policy outlined by LT is completely ludicrous and irresponsible - his position is that India will launch a full fledged nuclear strike on Pakistan irrespective of whether Pakistan would be responsible of a nuclear strike on India causing said response.


What is ridiculous is a Pakistani expecting India to eat a nuke and then opt for a graded response.
I would suggest reading the entire exchange, starting from LT's post that I responded to, since you are off arguing on a tangent to me. The argument here revolves around the suggestion that India would launch nukes at Pakistan even if Pakistan were not responsible for a 'nuclear strike on India', and not around an 'Indian nuclear response in case of a nuclear attack by Pakistan/supported by Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
13 Jan 14,, 21:40
What is ridiculous about the policy outlined by LT? Seems pretty sensible to me. Ridiculous is the notion that India should make patient inquiry over the provenance of mushroom clouds while the nuclear-armed sworn enemy across the border sits unmolested. You fellows must live together or burn together. Hopefully you find a way to manage the former.
What exactly do you find 'sensible' about a policy of attacking another nation with nuclear weapons without any justification other than 'sworn enemy'?
Quite frankly, it is some of the Indians commenting on this board who appear to subscribe to the rather paranoid and ludicrous musings of an alleged retired Pakistani military official interviewed by a Western journalist:

I thought he was making a joke. Then I saw he wasn't. I thought of the shrines to Pakistan's nuclear-weapons site, prominently displayed in every city. I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India.
Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb."
"For what purpose?" He didn't seem to understand my question. "In retaliation?" I asked.
"Why not?"
"Or first strike?"
"Why not?"
I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:
"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."
"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.
Aman nodded.
"And you are willing to see your children die?"
"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed. He repeated that they didn't have any future — his children or any other children.
I asked him if he thought he was alone in his thoughts, and Aman made it clear to me that he was not.
"Believe me," he went on, "If I were in charge, I would have already done it."
Aman stopped, as though he'd stunned even himself. Then he added, with quiet forcefulness, "Before I die, I hope I should see it."
It is this hopeless desperation that western officials are warning India about as New Delhi weighs the military option. A country without a future is quite willing to go down and try and take with it a country which is hopeful of its future despite its myriad problems.
Desperate Pak ready to nuke India - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/Desperate-Pak-ready-to-nuke-India/articleshow/10387267.cms)

cdude
13 Jan 14,, 23:31
What exactly do you find 'sensible' about a policy of attacking another nation with nuclear weapons without any justification other than 'sworn enemy'?
Quite frankly, it is some of the Indians commenting on this board who appear to subscribe to the rather paranoid and ludicrous musings of an alleged retired Pakistani military official interviewed by a Western journalist:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izW14UhPM0

Doktor
13 Jan 14,, 23:53
What exactly do you find 'sensible' about a policy of attacking another nation with nuclear weapons without any justification other than 'sworn enemy'?
What's better launch on warning or launch on impact? Sure the Indians will know where the missile (assuming it is a missile) origins, ie launch site.


Quite frankly, it is some of the Indians commenting on this board who appear to subscribe to the rather paranoid and ludicrous musings of an alleged retired Pakistani military official interviewed by a Western journalist:

You might want to re-read this thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63620-game-changer-india-tests-k-15-slbm-bay-bengal.html).

antimony
14 Jan 14,, 00:25
What exactly do you find 'sensible' about a policy of attacking another nation with nuclear weapons without any justification other than 'sworn enemy'?
Quite frankly, it is some of the Indians commenting on this board who appear to subscribe to the rather paranoid and ludicrous musings of an alleged retired Pakistani military official interviewed by a Western journalist:

There is a huge difference.

Brigadier Aman was talking about a trike without cause. Morever, he is/ was closely aligned with one of the ruling parties.

The India posters are talking of a retaliatory strike, and frankly, there is no nation that really would have a bigger interest in harming India than Pakistan.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 14,, 01:40
If a non-Pakistani nuke does go off on Indian soil, you can bet your ass that Islambad would be jumping up and down, screaming, "It's not us. It's not us."

And they would have about two hours to convince Dehli before return strikes occurred.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 02:35
What's better launch on warning or launch on impact? Sure the Indians will know where the missile (assuming it is a missile) origins, ie launch site.

Again, please re-read the exchange starting from LT's post - I am referring to a WMD attack on India that could not be linked to Pakistan through 'missile launch detection' - a nuke set-off by a terrorist group for example (obtained from a country other than Pakistan), or perhaps (since we are in the realm of the hypothetical) a nuclear attack by China - LT's position is that India would nuke Pakistan irrespective of who actually attacked India with WMD's, a view that fits in with the ramblings of the alleged retired Pakistani officer quoted above.


You might want to re-read this thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63620-game-changer-india-tests-k-15-slbm-bay-bengal.html).
You appear to not have understood the context of my comments, so I am not sure what purpose would be served by reading the thread recommended by you.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 02:40
There is a huge difference.

Brigadier Aman was talking about a trike without cause.
And LT was talking about a 'strike without a cause' - if India nukes Pakistan without even verifying who actually carried out a WMD attack on India, then that is essentially a 'strike without a cause'.

Morever, he is/ was closely aligned with one of the ruling parties.
Being aligned with a party in some function or the other does not mean that his personal views become State policy.


The India posters are talking of a retaliatory strike, and frankly, there is no nation that really would have a bigger interest in harming India than Pakistan.
The Indian posters need to re-read the exchange - I very specifically addressed LT's comment that India would 'nuke Pakistan' regardless of who actually carried out a WMD attack on India - a nuclear attack on Pakistan without any confirmation of Pakistani complicity in a WMD attack on India is not a retaliatory strike, it is a blind, unprovoked and irresponsible nuclear First Strike.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 02:42
If a non-Pakistani nuke does go off on Indian soil, you can bet your ass that Islambad would be jumping up and down, screaming, "It's not us. It's not us."

And they would have about two hours to convince Dehli before return strikes occurred.
They would have two hours in which to convince Delhi and let them know that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would be launched at India if India chose to not believe them. Islamabad is not going to sit around and do nothing if the Indians engage in the usual Indian Army led media histrionics scapegoating Pakistan, and decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Pakistan.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 14,, 02:46
They would have two hours in which to convince Delhi and let them know that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would be launched at India if India chose to not believe them. Islamabad is not going to sit around and do nothing if the Indians engage in the usual Indian Army led media histrionics to enrage the local populace and scapegoat Pakistan, and decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Pakistan.Pakistan going on a warfooting would be all the convincing India needs.

Doktor
14 Jan 14,, 02:57
They would have two hours in which to convince Delhi and let them know that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would be launched at India if India chose to not believe them.
Nice approach, "If you nuke us for nuking you, we will nuke you back"


Islamabad is not going to sit around and do nothing if the Indians engage in the usual Indian Army led media histrionics scapegoating Pakistan, and decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Pakistan.
Unprovoked?

guicho80
14 Jan 14,, 04:14
It is sensible precisely because it discourages Pakistan from entertaining the sort of lunacy proposed by the IM fellow.

ajhax
14 Jan 14,, 05:38
They would have two hours in which to convince Delhi and let them know that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would be launched at India if India chose to not believe them. Islamabad is not going to sit around and do nothing if the Indians engage in the usual Indian Army led media histrionics scapegoating Pakistan, and decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Pakistan.

It is very simple. If there is a nuclear mushroom over either of Delhi or Islamabad then other city would soon share the fate. We are together in this mess whether you like it or not.

sated buddha
14 Jan 14,, 13:42
But If Pakistan did not nuke India and India did in fact choose to nuke Pakistan, then India is 'nuking' Pakistan first. It can't be 'that difficult' to understand the point that a nuclear attack on another nation, without any idea of whether or not that nation was responsible for whatever it is that drove a nuclear response from India, is a foolish and irresponsible position.

We are not going to wait for a non state actor repeat.


If Pakistan does actually launch the first nuke at India, it will not be an isolated single weapon.

So you have nothing to worry about. We are dead already.


The policy outlined by LT is completely ludicrous and irresponsible - his position is that India will launch a full fledged nuclear strike on Pakistan irrespective of whether Pakistan would be responsible of a nuclear strike on India causing said response.

We will not be launching a war on you. We will be crossing the tipping point towards anihilating you as a country and a people. That Rubicon, once crossed, no one person will be able to turn the clock back.


I would suggest reading the entire exchange, starting from LT's post that I responded to, since you are off arguing on a tangent to me. The argument here revolves around the suggestion that India would launch nukes at Pakistan even if Pakistan were not responsible for a 'nuclear strike on India', and not around an 'Indian nuclear response in case of a nuclear attack by Pakistan/supported by Pakistan.

We will not wait for a repeat of non state actor.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 14:49
Nice approach, "If you nuke us for nuking you, we will nuke you back"

I am referring to a scenario in which Pakistan is not responsible for a 'WMD attack on India'.


Unprovoked?
Yes, given the hypothetical scenario I am referring to.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 14:58
Pakistan going on a warfooting would be all the convincing India needs.
Given the Indian reaction after the attack on the Indian parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan 'going on a war-footing' after any major attack (terrorist or otherwise) in India is guaranteed.

So, the Indian leadership has to weigh the fact that tens of millions of additional people could die in a major nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over a WMD attack in India that Pakistan may not even be responsible for. Whether India takes 2 hours or 2 months to decide to launch nukes at Pakistan (and invite nukes from Pakistan) is not going to significantly change the final outcome significantly, so why would the Indian leadership choose to not verify that Pakistan was responsible before provoking a nuclear exchange?

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 15:13
We are not going to wait for a non state actor repeat.
Deniability does not work if the WMD used by a non-State actor is Pakistani in origin - I believe OoE has talked about this particular aspect in great length on various threads, and I agree with him that a State must be held responsible if it cannot safeguard her WMD's and they end up being used by other 'State or non-State actors'. However, as I keep pointing out, I am referring to a hypothetical scenario in which Pakistan is not responsible for a WMD attack in India.

So you have nothing to worry about. We are dead already.
Which is understandable if one side is actually responsible for a WMD attack on the other, but LT's comment argues for a full fledged nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible.

We will not be launching a war on you. We will be crossing the tipping point towards anihilating you as a country and a people. That Rubicon, once crossed, no one person will be able to turn the clock back.
Harsh words those, coming from someone using the moniker 'sated Buddha' and arguing against people carrying conventional firearms :biggrin: - just remember that Pakistan will return the favor (and also keep in mind that neither country currently possesses the capability to actually do what you described).

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 14,, 15:34
Given the Indian reaction after the attack on the Indian parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan 'going on a war-footing' after any major attack (terrorist or otherwise) in India is guaranteed.You did not ready your nukes.


So, the Indian leadership has to weigh the fact that tens of millions of additional people could die in a major nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over a WMD attack in India that Pakistan may not even be responsible for. Whether India takes 2 hours or 2 months to decide to launch nukes at Pakistan (and invite nukes from Pakistan) is not going to significantly change the final outcome significantly, so why would the Indian leadership choose to not verify that Pakistan was responsible before provoking a nuclear exchange?Two hours is the time they need to mate warheads to delivery vehicles. Pakistan has that much time to de-escalate. What you're suggesting is anything but that sort.

sated buddha
14 Jan 14,, 18:03
Double Post.

sated buddha
14 Jan 14,, 18:03
Deniability does not work if the WMD used by a non-State actor is Pakistani in origin

No one wants a nuclear war. The bigger players are going to jump in and stop it given half the chance. If India takes a nuke and loses a million or two in the process, she will ensure that there is no Pakistan or Pakistani for the foreseeable future. And she will ensure that quickly before anyone gets second thoughts or dialog starts or the other nuclear powers come in. Sure there will be a few million of you still living in the West after this. Yearning wistfully for the glass plains both sides of the Indus.


Which is understandable if one side is actually responsible for a WMD attack on the other, but LT's comment argues for a full fledged nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible.

Iraq happened without WMDs being found and without WMDs being used on US soil. No one is perfect. Iraq still happened. Yes, Pakistan is not Iraq, India is not the US. But the theory remains. As does the aftermath.


Harsh words those, coming from someone using the moniker 'sated Buddha' and arguing against people carrying conventional firearms :biggrin: - just remember that Pakistan will return the favor (and also keep in mind that neither country currently possesses the capability to actually do what you described).

I'm afraid after taking a nuke we are not going to have the luxury of letting you live.

I argue against firearms in my own society. What is being discussed here is a threat to my society from outside. Which is why we have an army and give it guns and tanks and planes and ships and bombs. To be used so that we on the inside can try and continue living without taking up the gun.

I am reminded of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall. And if he has to nuke you out of existence so that our way of life continues, then that is what he has been tasked to do. And he will do it. Without debate or remorse.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 18:31
You did not ready your nukes.Those events did not warrant a nuclear response - the response to an event that might result in the Indians conducting a nuclear attack on Pakistan would result in a Pakistani military mobilization to match the perceived threat from India.


Two hours is the time they need to mate warheads to delivery vehicles. Pakistan has that much time to de-escalate. What you're suggesting is anything but that sort.
De-escalation has to be mutual - this gets back to the entire concept of using nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent' - the Indians know the Pakistani military will mobilize, and the Indian political leadership should know that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are being mobilized as a response to (or to preempt) a possible Indian nuclear strike in order to impact their calculus of initiating a nuclear exchange over an event that Pakistan is not (or may not be) responsible for.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 18:46
No one wants a nuclear war. The bigger players are going to jump in and stop it given half the chance. If India takes a nuke and loses a million or two in the process, she will ensure that there is no Pakistan or Pakistani for the foreseeable future. And she will ensure that quickly before anyone gets second thoughts or dialog starts or the other nuclear powers come in. Sure there will be a few million of you still living in the West after this. Yearning wistfully for the glass plains both sides of the Indus.
Rest assured, the favor will be returned by Pakistan, especially in this particular case of an unprovoked and irresponsible nuclear attack by India on Pakistan. That said, I'll repeat the fact that neither India nor Pakistan currently possess the capability to actually bring about the 'complete destruction of the other' scenario you are thumping your chest about.

Yes, Pakistan is not Iraq, India is not the US.
That is the only relevant part of that comment - the 'theory' is not relevant and neither is the 'aftermath' you are spouting off about going to happen with the existing capabilities on both sides.

I'm afraid after taking a nuke we are not going to have the luxury of letting you live.
India (and Pakistan) simply does not possess the capabilities of bringing your braggadocio to fruition.

I argue against firearms in my own society. What is being discussed here is a threat to my society from outside. Which is why we have an army and give it guns and tanks and planes and ships and bombs. To be used so that we on the inside can try and continue living without taking up the gun.
The general reasoning behind a responsible nation possessing military capabilities is that those military capabilities act as a deterrent and, in case of a failure of deterrence, can be used in self-defence - that concept generally conforms to the concepts used by gun rights advocates. The hypothetical scenario (based on LT's ludicrous position) I am discussing is one in which India choose to nuke Pakistan despite Pakistan not being responsible for a WMD attack on India - this particular position could only be advocated by irresponsible entities consumed by blind hatred of the other, such as that retired Pakistani military official quoted earlier.


I am reminded of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall. And if he has to nuke you out of existence so that our way of life continues, then that is what he has been tasked to do. And he will do it. Without debate or remorse.
Quoting JN doesn't really change the fact that neither India or Pakistan possess the capability to actually 'nuke the other out of existence', and at current investment and production levels, will either never achieve that capability or achieve it simultaneously, in which case, to quote you, "there will be no India or Indian in the foreseeable future ... sure, there will be a few of you still living in the West after this, yearning wistfully for the glass plains between Pakistan and Bangladesh .." There, see, meaningless braggadocio isn't really that hard to come up with, heck, I didn't even have to come up with something 'original'. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 14,, 19:14
Those events did not warrant a nuclear response - the response to an event that might result in the Indians conducting a nuclear attack on Pakistan would result in a Pakistani military mobilization to match the perceived threat from India.And a non-Pakistani nuclear attack on India warrants you to ready your nukes?


De-escalation has to be mutual - this gets back to the entire concept of using nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent' - the Indians know the Pakistani military will mobilize, and the Indian political leadership should know that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are being mobilized as a response to (or to preempt) a possible Indian nuclear strike in order to impact their calculus of initiating a nuclear exchange over an event that Pakistan is not (or may not be) responsible for.You can safeguard your nukes from nuclear attack without mating nukes to delivery vehicles, increase the calculus that India cannot and will not take out your nuclear arsenal and national command authority.

What you're suggesting tantamounts to inviting an Indian nuclear strike.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 19:33
And a non-Pakistani nuclear attack on India warrants you to ready your nukes?
Only if Lemontree's views on this thread are representative of the Indian leadership.

You can safeguard your nukes from nuclear attack without mating nukes to delivery vehicles, increase the calculus that India cannot and will not take out your nuclear arsenal and national command authority.
That is a valid point, and IMO should be something Pakistan continues to invest in - I just cannot comment (or for that matter speculate/infer, given my lack of knowledge on the subject) on how well (currently) the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and command authority would survive an Indian Nuclear First Strike.


What you're suggesting tantamounts to inviting an Indian nuclear strike.
Well, if the Indian leadership actually subscribes to views like those of LT, and the Pakistani leadership is not completely comfortable with the capability of the Pakistani nuclear weapons to survive an Indian First Strike, then I don't see how the Pakistan has a choice other than to mobilize both conventional and non-conventional military forces in case of a major WMD incident in India.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 14,, 20:10
That is a valid point, and IMO should be something Pakistan continues to invest in - I just cannot comment (or for that matter speculate/infer, given my lack of knowledge on the subject) on how well (currently) the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and command authority would survive an Indian Nuclear First Strike.I've done this song and dance 500 times over. The details are throughout this board. I'm not going to go through it again.

Trust me, India can't take out Pakistan's nukes. She doesn't have the numbers. China might if we add in all of her conventional batteries but even China doesn't have the nukes to take out the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jan 14,, 21:24
I've done this song and dance 500 times over. The details are throughout this board. I'm not going to go through it again.

Trust me, India can't take out Pakistan's nukes. She doesn't have the numbers. China might if we add in all of her conventional batteries but even China doesn't have the nukes to take out the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
You don't have to (go through a song and dance that is) - I have read your views on the issue on this and other threads and largely agree. I was merely pointing out that I don't have access to information (leaving aside your analyses of the issue) to make a determination one way or the other.

In any case, to move the argument along, assume Pakistan is confident of her nuclear assets and command and control surviving an Indian Nuclear First Strike and is able to convey the fact to the Indian leadership that they would be inviting retaliatory nuclear strikes (without actually mobilizing Pakistani nukes) if they went ahead with LT's proposal of nuking Pakistan regardless of whether or not Pakistan was complicit in said WMD event on Indian soil, would the Indian leadership still actually go ahead with the policy outlined by LT, or would they wait the days/weeks/months to confirm complicity before retaliating (if Pakistani complicity is proven)? What would be the drawbacks of waiting for 'nuclear forensics' to be completed before assigning blame and carrying out retaliation, especially if the result of 'nuclear forensics' would damn Pakistani denials (in case they were complicit)?

Doktor
14 Jan 14,, 23:51
Let's go back to the hypothetical scenario.

Assume you are Indian in charge, a nuke blasts in Mumbai. What you gonna do?

cdude
14 Jan 14,, 23:56
Let's go back to the hypothetical scenario.

Assume you are Indian in charge, a nuke blasts in Mumbai. What you gonna do?

You found out who did it?

Doktor
14 Jan 14,, 23:57
You found out who did it?

I am not in charge :biggrin:

Tronic
15 Jan 14,, 00:13
You'd assume that the Swordfish LRTR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_Long_Range_Tracking_RADAR) can track BMs launched by the Chinese in it's current posture. Once India's anti-ABM system is fully integrated across the country, it'll provide a warning and defense system against both Chinese and Pakistani BMs.

So what nuclear device is being debated here?

A terrorist hand-delivered one? Is it not a no-brainer why the retaliation will be against Pakistan after occurrence of such an event?

Tronic
15 Jan 14,, 00:32
I am referring to a WMD attack on India that could not be linked to Pakistan through 'missile launch detection' - a nuke set-off by a terrorist group for example (obtained from a country other than Pakistan)

With Pakistan's long history of using terrorism to wage assymetric warfare against India; a nuke strike by a terror organization in India will be an automatic retaliation against Pakistan. No questions asked. That's just the price you pay for using terrorism as an assymetric tool to wage war.

sated buddha
15 Jan 14,, 04:43
Agnostic Muslim, your arguments rest on why nots, should nots, and cannots. Lemontree, who I understand is an army man, has clearly laid out a scenario and its response. Do you not think that rather than us debating this, we should take cognizance of what a trained expert says? I know I would take a Pakistani army man more seriously than I would you.

lemontree
15 Jan 14,, 07:13
Just curious. Why you say so about Deepak Kapoor?

He was not confident enough to give a retaliation plan and address likely responses from Pakistan.

lemontree
15 Jan 14,, 07:19
I am referring to a scenario in which Pakistan is not responsible for a 'WMD attack on India'.


Then you have to also give an example of a state that would benefit from such an exercise?
Exclude China - since they are not idiots.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jan 14,, 09:02
In any case, to move the argument along, assume Pakistan is confident of her nuclear assets and command and control surviving an Indian Nuclear First Strike and is able to convey the fact to the Indian leadership that they would be inviting retaliatory nuclear strikes (without actually mobilizing Pakistani nukes) if they went ahead with LT's proposal of nuking Pakistan regardless of whether or not Pakistan was complicit in said WMD event on Indian soil, would the Indian leadership still actually go ahead with the policy outlined by LT, or would they wait the days/weeks/months to confirm complicity before retaliating (if Pakistani complicity is proven)? What would be the drawbacks of waiting for 'nuclear forensics' to be completed before assigning blame and carrying out retaliation, especially if the result of 'nuclear forensics' would damn Pakistani denials (in case they were complicit)?You are still thinking escalation.

Pakistan NEEDS to PROVE she didn't nuke India ... and I already know your next point ... but you refuses to understand the most logical action that Pakistan needs to do.

notorious_eagle
15 Jan 14,, 12:48
Agnostic Muslim, your arguments rest on why nots, should nots, and cannots. Lemontree, who I understand is an army man, has clearly laid out a scenario and its response. Do you not think that rather than us debating this, we should take cognizance of what a trained expert says? I know I would take a Pakistani army man more seriously than I would you.

What AM is stating is pretty much along the lines of the unofficial doctrine of SPD.

sated buddha
15 Jan 14,, 13:09
What AM is stating is pretty much along the lines of the unofficial doctrine of SPD.

Then all the more we have to nuke you, nuke you hard (disproportionately), and nuke you quickly, so that you do not and cannot get back off the ground to come back after us.

Therefore no time for forensics or the theatrics of non state actor hand wringing to the global community.

I understand from the Colonel that we cannot take out all of your nukes, but I'm sure we can take out many of your nukes (Colonel, Lemontree?). Those we cannot will either be intercepted best case scenario, or land on another of our city/ies worst case scenario. But we have a lot more land (and a lot more water), a lot more people, and a lot many more targets than you have nukes. The same is not true in the reverse. To the same extent.

Once the bell tolls, we need to make sure that if we get out of it, those of us that do, do not have to deal with a Pakistan (or similar such) again.

If your doctrine says what you and AM says it says, then LT's response scenario makes a lot more sense than it already made. Thank you for confirming as much.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jan 14,, 14:42
I understand from the Colonel that we cannot take out all of your nukes, but I'm sure we can take out many of your nukes (Colonel, Lemontree?).Not a single one and frankly with the small Indian nuclear arsenal, India would not want to.

sated buddha
15 Jan 14,, 17:26
double post

sated buddha
15 Jan 14,, 17:27
Not a single one and frankly with the small Indian nuclear arsenal, India would not want to.

I'm sorry for not being informed on this and talking in generalities. What exactly is involved in "taking out" a nuke short of your forces capturing the silos and disarming them with their launch codes? Firing one of your own nukes or really heavy deep hardened silo penetrating bombs to blow them up? Would that entail additional chain reaction (friendly) nuclear explosions in addition to the one you sent across or would the enemy nukes just get destroyed without initiating a fission/fusion reaction?

Officer of Engineers
15 Jan 14,, 17:41
During my time, we tasked 3 nukes per target. Both India and Pakistan is estimated to have 100 nukes each (I think that's way too high for Pakistan but that's what the open source intel says). So, basic theory states that India can only destroy 33 Pakistani nukes and that's without going into detail on how well Pakistan protects their nukes.

sated buddha
15 Jan 14,, 18:02
During my time, we tasked 3 nukes per target. Both India and Pakistan is estimated to have 100 nukes each (I think that's way too high for Pakistan but that's what the open source intel says). So, basic theory states that India can only destroy 33 Pakistani nukes and that's without going into detail on how well Pakistan protects their nukes.

But considering at the height of the cold war, before each started pulling back, both the US and the USSR had over 10,000 nukes each, even if all were tasked towards taking out enemy nukes, that still left each country defenseless against 7000+ nukes. And obviously that was never going to be enough. So why bother? Why not leverage each to do the maximum damage to the other? Or was there some formula for dividing the arsenal into offense and defense?

Doktor
15 Jan 14,, 18:59
But considering at the height of the cold war, before each started pulling back, both the US and the USSR had over 10,000 nukes each, even if all were tasked towards taking out enemy nukes, that still left each country defenseless against 7000+ nukes. And obviously that was never going to be enough. So why bother? Why not leverage each to do the maximum damage to the other? Or was there some formula for dividing the arsenal into offense and defense?

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 19:47
Then you have to also give an example of a state that would benefit from such an exercise?
Exclude China - since they are not idiots.
I don't see any State benefiting from such an exercise, hence the 'hypothetical'.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 19:48
With Pakistan's long history of using terrorism to wage assymetric warfare against India; a nuke strike by a terror organization in India will be an automatic retaliation against Pakistan. No questions asked.
A nuclear strike using 'non-state actors' against an opponent is significantly different from supporting insurgents fighting Indian security forces in internationally disputed territory, so no, it isn't a 'no-brainer'.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 19:51
Agnostic Muslim, your arguments rest on why nots, should nots, and cannots. Lemontree, who I understand is an army man, has clearly laid out a scenario and its response. Do you not think that rather than us debating this, we should take cognizance of what a trained expert says? I know I would take a Pakistani army man more seriously than I would you.
Lemontree's scenario, of carrying out a nuclear First Strike on Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible for a provocation, is a completely irresponsible one, which is why I am questioning whether such a ludicrous policy would actually be followed by the Indian government.

Doktor
15 Jan 14,, 19:55
Lemontree's scenario, of carrying out a nuclear First Strike on Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible for a provocation, is a completely irresponsible one, which is why I am questioning whether such a ludicrous policy would actually be followed by the Indian government.

AM,

I posted a question in post #83, which is not directed to you, but since you insist on this hypothetical scenario, could you answer it? Thanks.

antimony
15 Jan 14,, 20:03
I don't see any State benefiting from such an exercise, hence the 'hypothetical'.

I could not see any state benefiting out of Mumbai 2008, apart from pure spite. Yet, there is was. I cannot see anyone like Brig. Amanullah with such suicidal tendencies getting so high up in power. Yes our politicos are corrupt and power hungry but not suicidal like yours.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 20:07
You are still thinking escalation.
Military escalation by Pakistan (in terms of the mobilization of conventional and possibly nuclear forces) WILL happen - Pakistan is not going to trust in the Indian leadership acting rationally - the Indians, through their repeated attempts at pinning events like the Mumbai attacks on the Pakistani State, have shown that they will grasp at any straw to blame Pakistan.


Pakistan NEEDS to PROVE she didn't nuke India
Pakistan will obviously communicate with the Indians to inform them that all warheads and nuclear material is accounted for, and call for a thorough and impartial investigation into the origin of any nuclear device used in an attack in India, but all of that is not going to be accomplished in '2 hours', and LT's preferred course of action would not allow for anything more than a few cursory Pakistani denials to take place before a full fledged nuclear exchange takes place.


... and I already know your next point ... but you refuses to understand the most logical action that Pakistan needs to do.
Pakistan can assuage Indian concerns and assist in an investigation into any such nuclear attack on Indian soil (without compromising on security by ensuring full military mobilization at the same time) - what do you see as 'the most logical action Pakistan needs to do'?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 20:13
I could not see any state benefiting out of Mumbai 2008, apart from pure spite. Yet, there is was.
And no State benefited from the Mumbai attacks - the Pakistani State was not complicit and India has not offered anything credible to show that the Pakistani State was complicit.

I cannot see anyone like Brig. Amanullah with such suicidal tendencies getting so high up in power.
How was he 'high up in power'? He retired as a brigadier in the Army, a position in which he wasn't even close to actually making a decision to use nuclear weapons.

He was on the staff of a political party, with absolutely no indication that he was involved in the formulation of a nuclear weapons policy or nuclear doctrine for the party. This is the kind of 'grasping at straws' by Indians I was referring to earlier. A retired brigadier serving some political party as a staffer or something voices some random personal views, and Indians are jumping up and down screaming about how 'corrupt, power hungry and suicidal generals are running Pakistan'.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 20:16
AM,

I posted a question in post #83, which is not directed to you, but since you insist on this hypothetical scenario, could you answer it? Thanks.
Please see my response to OoE in post# 105.

Doktor
15 Jan 14,, 21:19
Please see my response to OoE in post# 105.

That's not what I asked. I asked what would YOU do if you were Indian in charge.

Just to be safe that there is a trap I will also ask what will you do if you are Pakistani in charge and nuke blasts in Karachi.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jan 14,, 21:33
That's not what I asked. I asked what would YOU do if you were Indian in charge.I would do what I proposed in my response - contact Pakistan, investigate the issue, keep a lid on the media histrionics until confirmation. I would want Pakistan or the US to do the same if they were at the receiving end of such an attack - properly investigate the event before escalating.

Doktor
15 Jan 14,, 23:11
I would do what I proposed in my response - contact Pakistan, investigate the issue, keep a lid on the media histrionics until confirmation. I would want Pakistan or the US to do the same if they were at the receiving end of such an attack - properly investigate the event before escalating.

You do realize that the surviving population would see you as a very weak *****.

lemontree
16 Jan 14,, 05:15
And no State benefited from the Mumbai attacks - the Pakistani State was not complicit and India has not offered anything credible to show that the Pakistani State was complicit.
The Pakistani state was very much involved in this operation, India has shown the world more than enough evidence.

sated buddha
16 Jan 14,, 07:34
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

MAD scenario would be there between enemies with 10,000 nukes apiece and 6000 miles apart, as well as between enemies with 100 nukes apiece and on each other's doorstep. I understand the enormity of destruction would be very different, but really after a point you're just going to be adding to radioactive overload. And either way, in both scenarios, for all intents, the country is dead as a modern 21st century society and state. Pakistan after all area-wise is a lot smaller than India, and a lot lot smaller than the US and the USSR.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jan 14,, 08:09
MAD scenario would be there between enemies with 10,000 nukes apieceYou're short 45,000+


and 6000 miles apart,We were nose to nose at the Fulda Gap.


as well as between enemies with 100 nukes apiece and on each other's doorstep.Both China and Russia lost over 100 cities each and both still went on to win their respective wars. Both Japan and Germany also lost over 100 cities each and both had to be killed down to the last man.


I understand the enormity of destruction would be very different, but really after a point you're just going to be adding to radioactive overload. And either way, in both scenarios, for all intents, the country is dead as a modern 21st century society and state. Pakistan after all area-wise is a lot smaller than India, and a lot lot smaller than the US and the USSR.Dok did the work for you here.

Goto this link

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63620-game-changer-india-tests-k-15-slbm-bay-bengal-5.html#post901775

And click on spoiler. You have a lot to learn.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jan 14,, 08:12
Military escalation by Pakistan (in terms of the mobilization of conventional and possibly nuclear forces) WILL happen - Pakistan is not going to trust in the Indian leadership acting rationally - the Indians, through their repeated attempts at pinning events like the Mumbai attacks on the Pakistani State, have shown that they will grasp at any straw to blame Pakistan.It's one thing to prepare to receive the enemy. It's quite another to man the jump off points. India would know which one you would be doing.


Pakistan will obviously communicate with the Indians to inform them that all warheads and nuclear material is accounted for, and call for a thorough and impartial investigation into the origin of any nuclear device used in an attack in India, but all of that is not going to be accomplished in '2 hours', and LT's preferred course of action would not allow for anything more than a few cursory Pakistani denials to take place before a full fledged nuclear exchange takes place.

Pakistan can assuage Indian concerns and assist in an investigation into any such nuclear attack on Indian soil (without compromising on security by ensuring full military mobilization at the same time) - what do you see as 'the most logical action Pakistan needs to do'?Easy. Open the books and the arsenals for Indian inspection. Prove to them that it's not your nuke.

lemontree
16 Jan 14,, 10:51
Military escalation by Pakistan (in terms of the mobilization of conventional and possibly nuclear forces) WILL happen - Pakistan is not going to trust in the Indian leadership acting rationally - the Indians, through their repeated attempts at pinning events like the Mumbai attacks on the Pakistani State, have shown that they will grasp at any straw to blame Pakistan.

Indian's are irrational!!!
The 1999 Kandahar hijacking was an ISI operation and Indians are irrational....
The 2008 Mumbai attacks have all the proof including a live attacker and David Headly....but Indians are irrational...
2009 attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was an ISI attack....but Indians are irrational....

.....the only reason Pakistan is not a waste land today is because Indians have behaved more rationally than anyone else.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jan 14,, 15:11
You do realize that the surviving population would see you as a very weak *****.
That would depend on the outcome of the investigation and the actions taken subsequently - if, as in the case of this hypothetical scenario, the investigation shows that Pakistan is not complicit, the leader involved in acting rationally would be hailed, domestically and globally.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jan 14,, 15:22
It's one thing to prepare to receive the enemy. It's quite another to man the jump off points. India would know which one you would be doing.Agreed, and I would expect Pakistan to do the former, while being prepared to quickly pivot to the latter, if needed.


Easy. Open the books and the arsenals for Indian inspection. Prove to them that it's not your nuke.
Opening the books, sure - I suggested that Pakistan do everything to reassure India (and the world community) that all her warheads and nuclear material are accounted for in case of a nuclear attack in India that Pakistan denies complicity in. That said, given the deliberate opacity of the Pakistani nuclear program, sharing exact data on the numbers of warheads and quantity of fissile material is not going to happen at a time of very high tension and potential war. Heck, Pakistan and India are not really interested in that kind of transparency even now. Not to mention the fact that there is no reason the Indians would even believe that the books and inspections actually show everything Pakistan possesses.

Finally, even if all of this (sharing books and physical inspections) went off without a hitch, it would likely occur over several months, which brings me back to my original point, of contesting LT's suggested policy of an immediate Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan after a nuclear event in India (an even in which Pakistani complicity has not been established).

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jan 14,, 15:24
The Pakistani state was very much involved in this operation, India has shown the world more than enough evidence.
India has provided nothing credible (and we have gone over the 'evidence' India considers to be 'enough' on many threads), to the world or its own public - that those supportive of a knee-jerk and irresponsible nuclear attack on Pakistan in response to any WMD event in India buy into the whole 'has shown the world more than enough evidence' canard is not really surprising.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jan 14,, 16:33
Finally, even if all of this (sharing books and physical inspections) went off without a hitch, it would likely occur over several months, which brings me back to my original point, of contesting LT's suggested policy of an immediate Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan after a nuclear event in India (an even in which Pakistani complicity has not been established).Several months? You've got two hours. Yeah, it may not be your fault that India got nuked by someone else. It may not even be your responsibility to prove it's not your nuke ... but that means crap all when Islamabad grows a mushroom cloud.

Jump on the hotline, tell Dehli that you will open your books and your arsenals for a one time inspection ... but you're willing to negotiate a SALT Treaty for contiuing access.

Islamabad has a duty, obligation, and a responsibility to avoid an avoidable nuclear war, even if India is too insane at the moment, especially when India is too insane.

Oracle
16 Jan 14,, 18:18
And no State benefited from the Mumbai attacks - the Pakistani State was not complicit and India has not offered anything credible to show that the Pakistani State was complicit.

Mumbai Attacks Renew Questions About Pakistan’s Crackdown on Militants (http://www.propublica.org/article/mumbai-attacks-renew-questions-about-pakistans-crackdown-on-militants)

Pakistan and the Mumbai Attacks: The Untold Story (http://www.propublica.org/article/pakistan-and-the-mumbai-attacks-the-untold-story)

The Unfinished Crisis: US Crisis Management after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks (http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Mumbai-Final_1.pdf)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB2QECmIhg

I have posted them before, while quoting one of your post. Did you read them?

appu_sen
17 Jan 14,, 12:16
India has provided nothing credible (and we have gone over the 'evidence' India considers to be 'enough' on many threads), to the world or its own public - that those supportive of a knee-jerk and irresponsible nuclear attack on Pakistan in response to any WMD event in India buy into the whole 'has shown the world more than enough evidence' canard is not really surprising.


That would have been the time to do it too, with a degree of certainty that Pakistan would not be able to get off a nuclear response (attacking India, Israel, Gulf bases) given that (according to Musharraf's book) Pakistan did not have a working deliverable nuclear deterrent at that time.

Two sentences not matching considering the same source:rolleyes:

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jan 14,, 15:07
Several months?
If you are talking about arranging physical inspections of nuclear facilities to cross-reference against inventory records of the nuclear arsenal and fissile material (on both sides of the border) then yes, several months, at the least.

You've got two hours
And as I pointed out before, the only thing that Pakistan can do in that time frame is offer assurances that its nuclear arsenal is accounted for, that it will cooperate with India and the international community in a thorough and impartial investigation into said WMD event in India etc.

Yeah, it may not be your fault that India got nuked by someone else. It may not even be your responsibility to prove it's not your nuke ... but that means crap all when Islamabad grows a mushroom cloud.
Hence my point that since the 'two hour' time-frame allows for little other than verbal exchanges and denials, Pakistan should start preparing for an offensive strike (while engaging in dialog with India as mentioned earlier) to ensure that India is aware of a full fledged Pakistani nuclear response if India does not 'return to sanity'. Given that (using your words) India may be 'insane' in those few hours after a WMD event, an FULL conventional and unconventional military mobilization by Pakistan, making clear to India that a rash move on her part will ensure significantly greater destruction on both sides, would be necessary to try and kick some sense into the heads of the Indian leadership.

Jump on the hotline, tell Dehli that you will open your books and your arsenals for a one time inspection ... but you're willing to negotiate a SALT Treaty for contiuing access.
As I have said repeatedly, I have nothing against Pakistan taking the steps mentioned, but, given Indian proclivity to blame anything under the sun that goes wrong in India on Pakistan, I don't expect India to be pacified by mere words. The threat of a full-fledged nuclear exchange is necessary to put pressure on the Indian leadership, directly and through the global community.


Islamabad has a duty, obligation, and a responsibility to avoid an avoidable nuclear war, even if India is too insane at the moment, especially when India is too insane.
India, as a signatory to the UN Charter and a so called 'responsible nuclear State', has an obligation to act rationally and determine the source of an attack on her before responding with a nuclear attack, and the global community has a responsibility to pressure India to act rationally, or threaten to take out Indian nukes if she does not back down from a position of blindly attacking Pakistan with nukes.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jan 14,, 15:15
Mumbai Attacks Renew Questions About Pakistan’s Crackdown on Militants (http://www.propublica.org/article/mumbai-attacks-renew-questions-about-pakistans-crackdown-on-militants)

Pakistan and the Mumbai Attacks: The Untold Story (http://www.propublica.org/article/pakistan-and-the-mumbai-attacks-the-untold-story)

The Unfinished Crisis: US Crisis Management after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks (http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Mumbai-Final_1.pdf)
I have posted them before, while quoting one of your post. Did you read them?
I did, and I believe I responded to them in the thread you initially posted those links and that video on.

BTW, since you insist in repeating the same thing again and again, here, yet again, is a link to thread discussing the BBC video and my post quoting Ejaz Haider's rebuttal of the BBC piece (post 5): http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/63804-secret-pakistan-bbc-documentary.html

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jan 14,, 15:17
Two sentences not matching considering the same source:rolleyes:
Oh but they do, you need to understand the context of each though ... :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
17 Jan 14,, 15:20
India, as a signatory to the UN Charter and a so called 'responsible nuclear State', has an obligation to act rationally and determine the source of an attack on her before responding with a nuclear attack, and the global community has a responsibility to pressure India to act rationally, or threaten to take out Indian nukes if she does not back down from a position of blindly attacking Pakistan with nukes.Do you remember 11 September? Do you recall the Russian and the Chinese military machines going on full alert? Do you even remember Iraq went on full alert?

No, that's because they were not stupid enough to give reason for the Americans to suspect them.

Apparently, your Pakistan is.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jan 14,, 15:33
Do you remember 11 September? Do you recall the Russian and the Chinese military machines going on full alert? Do you even remember Iraq went on full alert?

No, that's because they were not stupid enough to give reason for the Americans to suspect them.

No, that is because the US wasn't scapegoating the Russians and Chinese for every ill under the Sun at that point, like India has done and continues to do WRT Pakistan - the Cold War was over. Nor was there any concern about 'China and Russia having two hours to convince the US they were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks before mushroom clouds went up in Beijing and Moscow'.

The Indians are going to suspect Pakistan before anything even happens - allaying those suspicions will take a lot more than 'two hours of verbal denials and offers of cooperation'.The continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the fact (that you yourself have admitted) of a blind, rage driven irrational Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan, change the dynamics and therefore the kind of response Pakistan will have to engage in to deter an 'insane India' - the threat of far greater destruction in India and mobilizing global pressure on India to prevent a blind nuclear attack on Pakistan that would result in a full fledged regional nuclear exchange will have to be part of the response package.

Tronic
17 Jan 14,, 22:33
A nuclear strike using 'non-state actors' against an opponent is significantly different from supporting insurgents fighting Indian security forces in internationally disputed territory, so no, it isn't a 'no-brainer'.

From the Indian perspective, it's one and the same. You can't always be choosing to write the rules.

Doktor
17 Jan 14,, 23:00
No, that is because the US wasn't scapegoating the Russians and Chinese for every ill under the Sun at that point, like India has done and continues to do WRT Pakistan - the Cold War was over. Nor was there any concern about 'China and Russia having two hours to convince the US they were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks before mushroom clouds went up in Beijing and Moscow'.
You said it right, if during Cold war a nuke detonated in CONUS what would have happened?


The Indians are going to suspect Pakistan before anything even happens - allaying those suspicions will take a lot more than 'two hours of verbal denials and offers of cooperation'.The continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the fact (that you yourself have admitted) of a blind, rage driven irrational Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan, change the dynamics and therefore the kind of response Pakistan will have to engage in to deter an 'insane India' - the threat of far greater destruction in India and mobilizing global pressure on India to prevent a blind nuclear attack on Pakistan that would result in a full fledged regional nuclear exchange will have to be part of the response package.
India has it's own reasons for looking at Pakistan, I am fairly certain (un)official Islamabad plays a big role in that perception.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 14,, 05:47
No, that is because the US wasn't scapegoating the Russians and Chinese for every ill under the Sun at that point, like India has done and continues to do WRT Pakistan - the Cold War was over.The EP-3 Hainan Island Incident happened in April of the same year.


Nor was there any concern about 'China and Russia having two hours to convince the US they were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks before mushroom clouds went up in Beijing and Moscow'.You're right, not two hours. Five minutes.


The Indians are going to suspect Pakistan before anything even happens - allaying those suspicions will take a lot more than 'two hours of verbal denials and offers of cooperation'.The continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the fact (that you yourself have admitted) of a blind, rage driven irrational Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan, change the dynamics and therefore the kind of response Pakistan will have to engage in to deter an 'insane India' - the threat of far greater destruction in India and mobilizing global pressure on India to prevent a blind nuclear attack on Pakistan that would result in a full fledged regional nuclear exchange will have to be part of the response package.Do you even understand the concept of de-escalation?

cdude
18 Jan 14,, 06:11
You're right, not two hours. Five minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IedVRYUNWUU

Five minutes in the video, GWB was told "we are under attack". And this character sat there for another 5 minutes wondering what to do....

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 14,, 06:26
Get with the program. The Americans don't need two hours to mate warheads to rockets. They're already mated. They just need the go.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jan 14,, 19:13
From the Indian perspective, it's one and the same. You can't always be choosing to write the rules.
Like it or not, those rules are 'written and accepted', otherwise a nuclear confrontation over 'Pakistani support for freedom fighters in Disputed JK' would have occurred a long time ago.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jan 14,, 19:14
Get with the program. The Americans don't need two hours to mate warheads to rockets. They're already mated. They just need the go.
The actual time (minutes vs hours) is irrelevant to the point I am making, which is that Moscow and Beijing did not have to contend with the threat of a US nuclear against them 'within hours and minutes' of the 9/11 attacks.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jan 14,, 19:19
You said it right, if during Cold war a nuke detonated in CONUS what would have happened?I'll leave that up to OoE to answer, since he lived through much of that. Given the current Pakistan-India dynamics, and the proximity of the two nations, the policy prescriptions for countering an 'insane India' in the hypothetical scenario presented are not going to be completely analogous to those adopted during the Cold War.


India has it's own reasons for looking at Pakistan, I am fairly certain (un)official Islamabad plays a big role in that perception.
I am not concerned about Indian 'reasons' that would lead to a knee jerk response irrespective of Pakistani complicity - I am arguing about how Pakistan should best deter such an 'irrational, unprovoked Indian nuclear response', and that should be through a combination of full military mobilization (including nuclear forces), immediate contact and dialog with the Indians reassuring them that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and fissile material is accounted for (and possibly opening a discussion towards increased nuclear weapons program transparency on both sides going forward), and mobilizing global pressure against any Indian knee jerk reaction.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jan 14,, 19:25
Do you even understand the concept of de-escalation?
I do, and in that particular comment you responded to, I was arguing for FULL military mobilization on the part of Pakistan (along with all the necessary communication to reassure the Indians that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal had not been compromised) to impress upon, simultaneously, the Indians and the world powers the fact that an irrational, unprovoked move towards a nuclear strike on Pakistan by India would result in a full-fledged nuclear exchange causing far more destruction than some isolated WMD event in India whose source was not yet known, and therefore attempt to put tremendous pressure on the Indian leadership from global leadership (and the threat of widespread regional destruction from a nuclear exchange) to back down.

"De-escalation through escalation" if you will.

Tronic
18 Jan 14,, 19:41
Like it or not, those rules are 'written and accepted', otherwise a nuclear confrontation over 'Pakistani support for freedom fighters in Disputed JK' would have occurred a long time ago.

I hope you really don't believe that. Those rules don't apply if a mushroom cloud goes over India. It would automatically mean a mushroom cloud over Pakistan. Period.

An attack on the Indian parliament meant an automatic military build up on the Indo-Pak border, threatening an invasion. You believe a response to a nuke will be as or more reserved than an attack on the Parliament? Maybe your perspective of the Indian administration has been heavily influenced by the soft-peddling actions of Manmohan Singh, but don't be banking on that.

Agnostic Muslim
18 Jan 14,, 19:52
I hope you really don't believe that. Those rules don't apply if a mushroom cloud goes over India. It would automatically mean a mushroom cloud over Pakistan. Period.
Errr ... read the post again please - I was comparing two different scenarios - 1) State support for an insurgent movement in disputed territory 2) State support for a WMD attack on another State

You were arguing that the two scenarios were 'one and the same', I pointed out to you that not only were they 'not the same', and my comment in the post you replied to was about scenario 1 - you appear to have gotten things mixed up a bit ...

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 14,, 04:59
The actual time (minutes vs hours) is irrelevant to the point I am making, which is that Moscow and Beijing did not have to contend with the threat of a US nuclear against them 'within hours and minutes' of the 9/11 attacks.Let me put it in a context you can understand.

Supposed you are India with your sidearm in your hoster. Someone just shot you, you look around and you seek all the guys with the AK-47s with their barrels pointing straight up but you see your worst enemy trying to load his pistol and trying to aim that pistol at you,

That's the terrorist scenario.

Now, the American scenario. You're the guy with the baddest machine gun on the block. You've just been shot. You look up and see everyone who has an AK-47 started looking outwards looking for the bad guy.

In case you don't get the hint, both Russia and China rushed defenses to American embassies and NATO started flying fighter cover over their respective capitals protecting American embassies.

You are fucked up.

lemontree
20 Jan 14,, 05:22
I am not concerned about Indian 'reasons' that would lead to a knee jerk response irrespective of Pakistani complicity...
You should be very concerned about what antagonises your enemies/friends, and it should be part of the appreciation exercise.

appu_sen
20 Jan 14,, 07:57
Oh but they do, you need to understand the context of each though ... :rolleyes:
Cotext is same:
Case 1: India attacking Pak with nuke irrespective of Pak's involvement or not.
Case 2: Pak attacking India irrespective of India's involvement (US attacks Pak in the given scenario)

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 08:16
Case 2: Pak attacking India irrespective of India's involvement (US attacks Pak in the given scenario)

I did not get this point. Even with reference to the earliier discussion where the Colonel surmised that were an Indian (or Chinese) sub not protected behind a screen close to shore to try to launch a nuke, they would be taken out preemptively by the USN.

Why would the US interfere?

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 09:22
I did not get this point. Even with reference to the earliier discussion where the Colonel surmised that were an Indian (or Chinese) sub not protected behind a screen close to shore to try to launch a nuke, they would be taken out preemptively by the USN.

Why would the US interfere?

To prevent a mushroom maybe?

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 12:31
To prevent a mushroom maybe?

The way I understood it, the only way that would happen is by the US doing the mushrooming first. Either of the Indian or the Chinese subs, should they come out to play.

Can the US do the same to land based nukes without inflicting the same damage on a civilian population by in effect nuking either China or India preemptively?

And would the US do that? Especially to China, who at least theoretically can nuke the US mainland back? After all, the US is not going to be taking out the entire Chinese arsenal in a single massive strike just because the Chinese are about to nuke India right?

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 12:38
Can the US do the same to land based nukes without inflicting the same damage on a civilian population by in effect nuking either China or India preemptively?

The way I get it, the whole Indian and Chinese deterrence depends on the doubts of the attacker that ALL of their nukes will be taken out in a swift first strike. Be it nuclear or conventional doesn't matter.

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 12:41
The way I get it, the whole Indian and Chinese deterrence depends on the doubts of the attacker that ALL of their nukes will be taken out in a swift first strike. Be it nuclear or conventional doesn't matter.

By a third party , i.e. the US?

Again, why? The US in trying to prevent mushrooms, would be doing the mushrooming themselves? It defies logic.

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 12:46
By a third party
By any party.

i.e. the US?
Them included.


Again, why? The US in trying to prevent mushrooms, would be doing the mushrooming themselves? It defies logic.
1. Noone ever said US strike (if any) would be done with nuclear weapons.
2. Even if it is done, it's a matter of game theory, 1 US nuke means more will come if you don't deescalate. And there is nothing you can do about it short of calling Moscow. Something India, Pakistan and China can't do between each other.

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 16:56
Sorry double post.

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 16:56
2. Even if it is done, it's a matter of game theory, 1 US nuke means more will come if you don't deescalate.

How exactly is that any different from either India or China nuking each other in the first place first off. Are any of the few million who get vaporized going to take any solace from the fact that they got vaporized by a US nuke versus being vaporized by an Indian or a Chinese nuke?

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 18:12
How exactly is that any different from either India or China nuking each other in the first place first off. Are any of the few million who get vaporized going to take any solace from the fact that they got vaporized by a US nuke versus being vaporized by an Indian or a Chinese nuke?

What you gonna do in return? Nuke US? If you are all billion or so of you will vanish, if you don't, only a couple of million will be gone. Pure numbers.

BTW, you derailed into US nuking someone, I guess you do realize for this to happen, there has to be some sort of chain of events to lead to this, right?

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 18:26
What you gonna do in return? Nuke US? If you are all billion or so of you will vanish, if you don't, only a couple of million will be gone. Pure numbers.

My question was about the logic of the US mushroom clouding to stop mushroom clouding. I asked you where the logic of that was, and how was the US nuking either India or China to stop them from nuking each other any different if at all from India or China nuking each other in the first place as similar warning of further escalation of more to come.


BTW, you derailed into US nuking someone, I guess you do realize for this to happen, there has to be some sort of chain of events to lead to this, right?

I was and am trying to understand the logic or rationale for the US to intervene. Its still not clear. But if you feel its derailing the thread maybe I could take this up elsewhere at a different and more appropriate time and place. Sorry.

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 18:27
What you gonna do in return? Nuke US? If you are all billion or so of you will vanish, if you don't, only a couple of million will be gone. Pure numbers.

My question was about the logic of the US mushroom clouding to stop mushroom clouding. I asked you where the logic of that was, and how was the US nuking either India or China to stop them from nuking each other any different if at all from India or China nuking each other in the first place as similar warning of further escalation of more to come.


BTW, you derailed into US nuking someone, I guess you do realize for this to happen, there has to be some sort of chain of events to lead to this, right?

I was and am trying to understand the logic or rationale for the US to intervene. Its still not clear. But if you feel its derailing the thread maybe I could take this up elsewhere at a different and more appropriate time and place. Sorry.

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 18:31
My question was about the logic of the US mushroom clouding to stop mushroom clouding. I asked you where the logic of that was, and how was the US nuking either India or China to stop them from nuking each other any different if at all from India or China nuking each other in the first place as similar warning of further escalation of more to come.

I was and am trying to understand the logic or rationale for the US to intervene. Its still not clear. But if you feel its derailing the thread maybe I could take this up elsewhere at a different and more appropriate time and place. Sorry.
You have put the logic that US will drop a nuke and now ask for rationale from the others?:confused:

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 18:48
double post

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 18:48
You have put the logic that US will drop a nuke and now ask for rationale from the others?:confused:

Nuclear or massive conventional as pointed out by you. Intervention is what I am trying to understand.

commander
20 Jan 14,, 18:56
Wow i was off the grid for some days and could see others were busy at work...


No, that is because the US wasn't scapegoating the Russians and Chinese for every ill under the Sun at that point, like India has done and continues to do WRT Pakistan - the Cold War was over. Nor was there any concern about 'China and Russia having two hours to convince the US they were not responsible for the 9/11 attacks before mushroom clouds went up in Beijing and Moscow'.

The Indians are going to suspect Pakistan before anything even happens - allaying those suspicions will take a lot more than 'two hours of verbal denials and offers of cooperation'.The continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the fact (that you yourself have admitted) of a blind, rage driven irrational Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan, change the dynamics and therefore the kind of response Pakistan will have to engage in to deter an 'insane India' - the threat of far greater destruction in India and mobilizing global pressure on India to prevent a blind nuclear attack on Pakistan that would result in a full fledged regional nuclear exchange will have to be part of the response package.

All you have been trying to prove so far is we will Nuke you again if you try to Nuke us. IMHO the leadership would definitely take a sane or insane decision which either way doesnt end well for Pakistan. What if after 6 months we find out it is pakistan? What then ? We might even use the opportunity to take care of the pests once and for all rather than fending them off every day from our borders. This is my opinion though which might be the opinion of billions of fellow Indians at the moment. As I said earlier if the govt fails to act swiftly and as per your words investigates it for a longer time and then find out it was pakistan then IMHO that party can never ever come to power but if they take some sort of action then atleast they can portray themselves as some who took care of the menace immediately , Hell if it's not Pakistan at the end for all your country did so far we wont even mind :biggrin:.

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 18:57
Nuclear or massive conventional as pointed out by you. Intervention is what I am trying to understand.

Look at the history. Just like any other country, the US intervened politically, economically and militarily whenever their interests were at stake.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jan 14,, 18:57
The N5 will not allow survivng nuclear war members to continue to have nuclear arms. You've crossed the threshold with each other. You will cross the threshold with others and after a nuclear war is when you are most opened to pressure to disarm. Namely, there isn't enough help on this globe to deal with surviving nuclear war refugees and the price of that help would be nuclear disarmament ... or more war to disarm you and let your populations deal with the consequences.

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 19:05
The N5 will not allow survivng nuclear war members to continue to have nuclear arms. You've crossed the threshold with each other. You will cross the threshold with others and after a nuclear war is when you are most opened to pressure to disarm. Namely, there isn't enough help on this globe to deal with surviving nuclear war refugees and the price of that help would be nuclear disarmament ... or more war to disarm you and let your populations deal with the consequences.

This part I can understand as the logic is clear. Its the preemptive intervention I cannot.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jan 14,, 19:32
If you're talking about the USN scenario vis-a-vi Indian boomers. It isn't intervention per say to stop an Indian nuclear attack but that it would be standard USN policy to track Indian boomers; essentially, it would be only with their permission that you can launch a nuclear attack.

If India does not want to rely on American permission, then she will have to adopt the practices that would force the USN away from their boomers and that is both air and naval screens protecting that Indian boomer.

Doktor
20 Jan 14,, 19:50
Its the preemptive intervention I cannot.

Why?

sated buddha
20 Jan 14,, 20:01
If you're talking about the USN scenario vis-a-vi Indian boomers. It isn't intervention per say to stop an Indian nuclear attack but that it would be standard USN policy to track Indian boomers; essentially, it would be only with their permission that you can launch a nuclear attack.

If India does not want to rely on American permission, then she will have to adopt the practices that would force the USN away from their boomers and that is both air and naval screens protecting that Indian boomer.

Correct me if I am wrong please, but the sea part of the nuclear triad is to ensure survivability. Which means if we are talking about a sea launch, in all likelihood India has already taken and discharged (or lost) land nukes.

In such a case, would India really wait for US permission? Or would such permission or not really matter?

And lastly, in such case, I cannot perceivably think of a reason or scenario where the US would come in India's way.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jan 14,, 20:56
You're missing the point.

Accept it as fact that Indian boomers will always be tracked even during times of peace by the USN. Unless your boomers are behind air and naval screens, also accept it as fact that your boomers will be in range of an American torpedo, even during times of peace; especially in times of peace.

The USN tracks all non-Allied boomers and that includes the Russians, Chinese, Indian, and Israelis. That's just the way they do their work.

So, if you don't want to be in range of an American torpedo, your boomers will have to sit behind air and naval screens.

lemontree
21 Jan 14,, 05:24
Correct me if I am wrong please, but the sea part of the nuclear triad is to ensure survivability. Which means if we are talking about a sea launch, in all likelihood India has already taken and discharged (or lost) land nukes.

A point you should remember is that, the IN submarines would come in the picture only if the target is a distant continent. It this not Pak centric. They are to ensure that India has the ability to reach any intended target.

lemontree
21 Jan 14,, 05:27
The USN tracks all non-Allied boomers and that includes the Russians, Chinese, Indian, and Israelis. That's just the way they do their work.
So, if you don't want to be in range of an American torpedo, your boomers will have to sit behind air and naval screens.

I'm sure the Russians and Chinese do the same for USN vessels.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 06:57
A point you should remember is that, the IN submarines would come in the picture only if the target is a distant continent. It this not Pak centric. They are to ensure that India has the ability to reach any intended target.

But LT, the same can be done by ICBMs right? Which are protected on your own soil. And Agni 5 has basically brought most of continental Europe into its range. So that leaves just the Americas I guess. So are Indian boomers a stop gap till the rumored Suryas break silence?

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 07:02
But LT, the same can be done by ICBMs right? Which are protected on your own soil. And Agni 5 has basically brought most of continental Europe into its range. So that leaves just the Americas I guess. So are Indian boomers a stop gap till the rumored Suryas break silence?

You ever heard about risk dispersion?

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 07:07
You ever heard about risk dispersion?

Yes. And that would basically come under survivability right?

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 09:48
The N5 will not allow survivng nuclear war members to continue to have nuclear arms. You've crossed the threshold with each other. You will cross the threshold with others and after a nuclear war is when you are most opened to pressure to disarm. Namely, there isn't enough help on this globe to deal with surviving nuclear war refugees and the price of that help would be nuclear disarmament ... or more war to disarm you and let your populations deal with the consequences.

India will simply tell P5 to fuck off. The Pakistan is down and we have shown our resolve to hit anyone who attacks our territory. As far as aftermath of nuclear war with Pakistani is concern then we will deal with it without begging P5 to help us. Just one monsoon and we will be back on track.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 09:56
India will simply tell P5 to fuck off. The Pakistan is down and we have shown our resolve to hit anyone who attacks our territory. As far as aftermath of nuclear war with Pakistani is concern then we will deal with it without begging P5 to help us. Just one monsoon and we will be back on track.You have absolutely no idea about nuclear destruction, do you? Are you one of those who takes Pakistani strategic planners to be complete idiots? WAKE UP! THEY WANT TO DESTROY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!

THAT MEANS THAT THEY WANT TO DESTROY YOUR INFRASTRUTCTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

They will aim for your power control centers, your communication nodes, your water treatment plants, anything and everything that the GOI needs to control and distribute aide and more importantly travel.

Hell, just looking at the map of your rail links, 30 points will bring India to a standstill.

Only an idiot thinks that they could come out of a nuclear war ok.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 09:57
I'm sure the Russians and Chinese do the same for USN vessels.Nope. Their subs are way noiser than ours.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 10:01
You have absolutely no idea about nuclear destruction, do you? Are you one of those who takes Pakistani strategic planners to be complete idiots? WAKE UP! THEY WANT TO DESTROY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!

THAT MEANS THAT THEY WANT TO DESTROY YOUR INFRASTRUTCTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

They will aim for your power control centers, your communication nodes, your water treatment plants, anything and everything that the GOI needs to control and distribute aide and more importantly travel.

Hell, just looking at the map of your rail links, 30 points will bring India to a standstill.

Only an idiot thinks that they could come out of a nuclear war ok.

Colonel, I was reading the Doktor posted Stuart Slade as you rightly suggested I do. Thank you both!

We have a BIG B country Colonel. In fact India LIVES in the B country. The A country is only what the outside world sees and hears of.

Btw, I did not understand the bit about think tanks. Are guys like Stuart Slade simply experts on a private level, or do they actualy have some official standing/backing? How seriously should we take what they write as indicative of actual fact.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 10:05
Stuart Slade is a former nuclear weapons targeteer. He is a nuclear warfighter.

His job is to figure out what to hit, how to hit, where to hit and with what's left ... and how him personally needs to avoid being hit because for him to do his job, he needs to survive first.

Both India and Pakistan are aiming to have around 200 nukes each. That's what the production rates of fissile materials point to. Certainly nothing over 300. You don't have to hit everything. You just have to hit the right ones.

To kill a city, you don't aim for city hall. You aim for the water treatment plants and let cholera take over.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 10:16
Another nugget of information I got was to tape up glass windows (something like what we do to headlights of cars and bikes on track days). That and keeping a lot of strong black coffee on hand is now on my to do list for a potential nuclear strike.

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 10:20
It's better to invest in politician who would avoid nuclear winter.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 10:23
You have absolutely no idea about nuclear destruction, do you? Are you one of those who takes Pakistani strategic planners to be complete idiots? WAKE UP! THEY WANT TO DESTROY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!

Sir, with due respect, are you going to preach us the aftermaths of nuclear war when one of our cities is already down ?
Pakistanis will take us down and we will take Pakistan down. Any surviving nation which I am sure will be India will tell P5 to fuck of before talking about our remaining arsenal or capacity to build one.


THAT MEANS THAT THEY WANT TO DESTROY YOUR INFRASTRUTCTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

What it has to do with what I have wrote ?


They will aim for your power control centers, your communication nodes, your water treatment plants, anything and everything that the GOI needs to control and distribute aide and more importantly travel.


So what, within 5 years we will build them back.


Hell, just looking at the map of your rail links, 30 points will bring India to a standstill.

Only an idiot thinks that they could come out of a nuclear war ok.

I am sorry I am not interested in learning aftermath of nuclear war. I know by saying so many posters will get worked up with lectures on nuclear war this and that.

But my point is, I can see India maturing delivery systems and readying to hit any city, may be we can not offer MAD but a deterrence which has failed with impulsive Pakistan but will remain relevant in the eyes of rest. This is called flexible nuclear deterrence and our think tanks have been already talking about it; in the hindsight of developing threat of nuclear terrorist attack.

BTW I am surprised you are even participating in this thread which is just a horse pockey scenario by your understanding if have read you correctly couple of years back on a thread on dirty nuclear bombs being no possibility at all. But in this thread I have seen you trying understand this scenario. Why ?

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 10:25
It's better to invest in politician who would avoid nuclear winter.

Doktor, I cannot do anything investment wise to influence who holds the power to avoid the same in Pakistan.

Rest assured, if they strike, we will strike back and strike to destroy them completely. Once and for all. The way most Indians feel about this in the country, especially since 26/11, losing a generation or two may actually be a price India would collectively be willing to pay for the greater good. Of Indians and the world.

Please remember that India is where it is today in 67 years after close to 700-800 years of foreign rule and plunder and killing. If we can rebuild from that, we can rebuild from this. We will rebuild from this. On our own if need be.

Minskaya
21 Jan 14,, 11:06
So what, within 5 years we will build them back.
I suggest that you read this thread...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/europe-russia/64443-chernobyl-today.html

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 11:08
I suggest that you read this thread...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/europe-russia/64443-chernobyl-today.html

Then google Fukushima today.

BTW, this just popped to my mailbox: How to Survive a Nuclear Explosion | Science/AAAS | News (http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/01/how-survive-nuclear-explosion?rss=1)

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 11:25
I suggest that you read this thread...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/europe-russia/64443-chernobyl-today.html

I suggest you to read it again yourself.

They have abandoned it deliberately because they have other options to move people or simply they can afford to abandon it. There will be many cities even India will not even touch but focus on other priorities first.

BTW I have no interested in deviating the topic with lecture of Nuclear aftermaths. So please anyone else who think they want to put sense in me on this regards, spare me.
................

The context is that one of the Indian city is already down.

The think tanks who represent P5 or nuclear war fighting nations, where not taking responsibility of Pakistan's actions against India. For them either this scenario is not possible at all or if it is then It is India's headache to ask Indian nuclear forensics to find out who is behind it. India will find it out, hit the perpetrator and post war make sure her capabilities remain intact.

If post nuclear terrorist attack on Indian city, Pakistani is not an immediate nuclear target of P5 then P5 have no business whatsoever to dictate India. Only P5 can wish India to have a clown like Man Mohan Singh as PM of India, i.e. weak political leadership. However going by few India military professionals views even a weak leadership will not be able to veto Indian military retaliation.

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 11:50
I suggest you to read it again yourself.

They have abandoned it deliberately because they have other options to move people or simply they can afford to abandon it. There will be many cities even India will not even touch but focus on other priorities first.

BTW I have no interested in deviating the topic with lecture of Nuclear aftermaths. So please anyone else who think they want to put sense in me on this regards, spare me.
................

Then you have missed the point.

Yes, the Soviets have moved what could have been moved out and left everything behind. But, but, look at Geiger's readings even today, 20 years later.

Multiply Chernobyl throughout India 60-100 times and tell me how you gonna tell anyone to fuck up? Moreover, who is gonna tell anyone to fuck up? Time wont be on your side. Monsoons or not.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 12:05
Then you have missed the point.

Yes, the Soviets have moved what could have been moved out and left everything behind. But, but, look at Geiger's readings even today, 20 years later.

Multiply Chernobyl throughout India 60-100 times and tell me how you gonna tell anyone to fuck up? Moreover, who is gonna tell anyone to fuck up? Time wont be on your side. Monsoons or not.

Huh.. Industrial hazard, nuclear reactor meltdown, prolonged continuous leak/ exposure, with government cover up/doing nothing.

Did you read I already covered it with Monsoon ? I suggest you to read Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 12:12
Doktor please help me understand where you are going with this. Are you perhaps suggesting that if a city of India gets nuked, India sits put because reacting will endanger many other cities as well? Something we will not be able to recover from?

After how many cities should we then react?

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 12:33
Doktor please help me understand where you are going with this. Are you perhaps suggesting that if a city of India gets nuked, India sits put because reacting will endanger many other cities as well? Something we will not be able to recover from?

After how many cities should we then react?
I am not suggesting anything wrt what India should do. I am merely opposing the coolness that it will be biz as usual. It wont.

BTW if someone grows a mushroom in India, it means your entire nuclear doctrine failed.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 12:39
I am not suggesting anything wrt what India should do. I am merely opposing the coolness that it will be biz as usual. It wont.

BTW if someone grows a mushroom in India, it means your entire nuclear doctrine failed.

I'm not under any illusions that a nuclear war will not hit us badly. But I also know that while we will be hit badly, Pakistan will be finished.

Now considering that its the A country that will get hit mainlly, and the B country that will rebuild, that means even if we consider ALL our metropolises and tier I through III cities and towns obliterated, that still leaves huge tracts of agricultural land and water and close to 800 million population still standing after the war.

It will NOT be hard for India to revert to its agrarian roots. Scratch the surface and we are still an agrarian society fully dependent on our land and our monsoons. And all the tools are still there, regardles of the evolution of technology, electricity, computers, etc. And a large portion of those 800 million are young and with basic education at the minimum.

Over time we will rebuild. And over time the irradiated land and air and water will also recover.

Yes the doctrine failed. But it would not be our first failure.

Nor our last.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 12:41
BTW if someone grows a mushroom in India, it means your entire nuclear doctrine failed.

What do you mean by doctrine ?

I think you are saying deterrence.

That someone has to be Pakistan or China, India has no chance against rest.

No it is not India's nuclear deterrence failed but Pakistan's; China will not grow mushroom in India. India's deterrence will remain relevant as long as it has enough numbers.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 13:16
BTW I am surprised you are even participating in this thread which is just a horse pockey scenario by your understanding if have read you correctly couple of years back on a thread on dirty nuclear bombs being no possibility at all. But in this thread I have seen you trying understand this scenario. Why ?Because you have not read a single thing I wrote. I said nothing about dirty bombs. I said cholera.

Look, you dumb idiot. If India thinks that 200 nukes can inflict unacceptable damage on any attacker, then what the hell do you think that India can absorb 200 nukes and have acceptable damage.

You also did not understand the difference between a natural disaster and a focus strike. Just because you survive a mud slide which has a 1000 more times more destructive power than a bullet does not mean you can survive a shot to the head. Did you even understand what I meant by collapsing your rail lines? It means your dead cities get no help, no doctors, no rescuers, no engineers. The south can't help the north and the west can't send medicine to the east. The locals will help themselves and each region would become a country on their own. They have to. Dehli would be useless.

And the N5, btw, I know they're the same countries but recognize the significance when I use N as in Nuclear, would be appalled that Pakistan and India fought a nuclear war. The pressure will be on to disarm. You actually think India can prevent signifcant additional population loss without help? You need to buy steel to repair your railways. You need to buy new trains. You need to get medicines. You need oil. You need all those things right now even before a nuclear war. You actually think you can survive without them after a nuclear war?

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 13:20
Now considering that its the A country that will get hit mainlly, and the B country that will rebuild, that means even if we consider ALL our metropolises and tier I through III cities and towns obliterated, that still leaves huge tracts of agricultural land and water and close to 800 million population still standing after the war.Look up the term counter-population.

You do recall that China said the same thing to Stuart Slade who showed them with a fraction of the American arsenal, they wiped out 80% of China's population. Not that Pakistan is anywhere close to the American arsenal but what would a loss of a 100 million people within 1 year do to India?

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 13:27
That someone has to be Pakistan or China, India has no chance against rest.China got more nukes than the UK and a hell of alot more missiles.


No it is not India's nuclear deterrence failed but Pakistan's; China will not grow mushroom in India. India's deterrence will remain relevant as long as it has enough numbers.I don't get this. Why do you think Pakistani nuclear planners are idiots? That they don't know how to inflict unacceptable loss on India?

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 14:31
China got more nukes than the UK and a hell of alot more missiles.
And more targets on their turf.


I don't get this. Why do you think Pakistani nuclear planners are idiots? That they don't know how to inflict unacceptable loss on India?
I guess the confidence is because the number of nukes is disproportional with the territories.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 14:43
Because you have not read a single thing I wrote. I said nothing about dirty bombs. I said cholera.

I have read you enough to mention a two year old input of yours. Previously you have said that there is no such thing like terrorist nuclear strike, why suddenly you want to explore the possibilities ? It is my fault that instead writing dirty bomb I should have wrote nuclear bomb/ a small nuclear bomb which can be smuggled and detonated.


Look, you dumb idiot. If India thinks that 200 nukes can inflict unacceptable damage on any attacker, then what the hell do you think that India can absorb 200 nukes and have acceptable damage.


This idiot and dumb is clever enough to print a material worth your attention. I am open to accept weakness in my understanding at the cost of bringing some thing good out of you.

1. There nothing like any attacker. It is Pakistan only.

2. India do not need 200 bombs to obliterate Pakistan like China may not need nuclear bombs to destroy India's capacity of nuclear retaliation. The point is we are increasing our capabilities. At present we can fairly think of mixing the arsenal before reaching to a point where we will be able to retaliate with conventional strikes.

3. If You can not see the whole situation where Pakistan stands at bottom of nuclear battle fighting, being smaller in geography then I can not help.

3. Tossing 200 nuclear bombs at India will be then no fight between India and Pakistan but USA and Russia vs Pakistan who watch her more religiously than India could. If they will cower away then who the hell is anyone to remind us about the miseries of nuclear fall out our civilians will suffer. We will conduct the maximum punitive strikes

4. There are Chinese tab on Pakistan's nuclear decision making which further makes it complicated for Pakistan.


You also did not understand the difference between a natural disaster and a focus strike.

I do not understand play of words but I understand available examples, such and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Just because you survive a mud slide which has a 1000 more times more destructive power than a bullet does not mean you can survive a shot to the head.

Mountains and rice fields are not humans, they will be there and rice will be harvested later on.


Did you even understand what I meant by collapsing your rail lines? It means your dead cities get no help, no doctors, no rescuers, no engineers. The south can't help the north and the west can't send medicine to the east. The locals will help themselves and each region would become a country on their own. They have to. Dehli would be useless.


I am here learn better things than aftermaths of nuclear war.

USA will negotiate our nuclear arsenal for aid post war and you think we do not know it ?

1. You can not aid big country like India. So it is a moot point. Indian will survive off coast which is 61000 km long.

2. Before going after Pakistan we will keep the adequate numbers. Indian has largest stockpile of weapon grade uranium/plutonium.


And the N5, btw, I know they're the same countries but recognize the significance when I use N as in Nuclear, would be appalled that Pakistan and India fought a nuclear war. The pressure will be on to disarm. You actually think India can prevent signifcant additional population loss without help? You need to buy steel to repair your railways. You need to buy new trains. You need to get medicines. You need oil. You need all those things right now even before a nuclear war. You actually think you can survive without them after a nuclear war?

1. N5 will not be able to disarm a surviving nation, period.

2. In case of India, before negotiating with N5 we will be aware that out of 5 it were 2 (USA and China) who made Pakistan a nuclear monster. We will simply tell them to take a hike.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 15:06
I don't get this. Why do you think Pakistani nuclear planners are idiots? That they don't know how to inflict unacceptable loss on India?

I have stated few points above.

I am not saying Pakistani military planners are Idiots, I believe they will never attack India in pre-emption. I believe they will not even remain true to their threshold, I mean their threshold is more tolerating than what they are advertising.

If you see in my very first or second post I have clearly talked about the scenario (sticking with the topic in hand) that when one of our city is already down by a terrorist nuclear strike, then in that case India will retaliate Pakistan without even asking nuclear forensics.

1. If we will delay It will set a bad example for others. They will learn an easy way to punish us.

2. If it was not Pakistan but someone else, even in that case Pakistan should go down and no one gets our remaining arsenal.

troung
21 Jan 14,, 15:16
Had this guy somehow gotten a nuke and then managed set off the nuke; then India, to paraphrase Humphrey Bougard, would two things - take it and complain about it. This crap about firing off nukes, giving the P5 the finger and whatever else - wouldn't happen. A lot of bitching would occur, some chest beating, cross border shelling, creating a crisis and then allowing themselves to be talked down. Might end up with some international inspection of Pak nukes, which would take weeks or months to set up and deal with Chinese/Pak stonewalling for months after that.

Back the status quo.

Thirteen pages of fantasy regarding the response.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B76s0SF47xw

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 15:37
I have read you enough to mention a two year old input of yours. Previously you have said that there is no such thing like terrorist nuclear strike, why suddenly you want to explore the possibilities ? It is my fault that instead writing dirty bomb I should have wrote nuclear bomb/ a small nuclear bomb which can be smuggled and detonated.If you want to explore that possibility, fine. It was part of a disarming first strike by Soviet think tanks to bypass early missile detection. Suitcase nukes smuggled in to various capitals and detonated before the missiles fly.

We've also had suitcase nukes for our special forces to get to the hard to hit by missile locations.

So, no, there is no such thing as a terrorist strike. It is only the beginning of a nuclear war. If one goes, they all go.


This idiot and dumb is clever enough to print a material worth your attention. I am open to accept weakness in my understanding at the cost of bringing some thing good out of you.You can also think before you write.


1. There nothing like any attacker. It is Pakistan only.Iran. North Korea.


2. India do not need 200 bombs to obliterate Pakistan like China may not need nuclear bombs to destroy India's capacity of nuclear retaliation. The point is we are increasing our capabilities. At present we can fairly think of mixing the arsenal before reaching to a point where we will be able to retaliate with conventional strikes.Here's the freaking point. You can't obliterate Pakistan. All you can do is Balkanize it. You are not going to kill every Pakistani man, woman, child, dog. And they can do the same to you.


3. If You can not see the whole situation where Pakistan stands at bottom of nuclear battle fighting, being smaller in geography then I can not help. Nothing to do with geography. Everything to do with target selection.


3. Tossing 200 nuclear bombs at India will be then no fight between India and Pakistan but USA and Russia vs Pakistan who watch her more religiously than India could. If they will cower away then who the hell is anyone to remind us about the miseries of nuclear fall out our civilians will suffer. We will conduct the maximum punitive strikes And everyone else will stay out until you finish pulverizing each other and then coming back to dictate terms.


4. There are Chinese tab on Pakistan's nuclear decision making which further makes it complicated for Pakistan.And if they fail?


I do not understand play of words but I understand available examples, such and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Our understanding of deliberate nuclear contaimination has gone way beyond that. What do you think a neutron bomb is?


Mountains and rice fields are not humans, they will be there and rice will be harvested later on.Look up cobalt contaimination.


I am here learn better things than aftermaths of nuclear war.

USA will negotiate our nuclear arsenal for aid post war and you think we do not know it ?

1. You can not aid big country like India. So it is a moot point. Indian will survive off coast which is 61000 km long.Here's one. Blockade your oil imports.


2. Before going after Pakistan we will keep the adequate numbers. Indian has largest stockpile of weapon grade uranium/plutonium.No, you don't. You neither had the plants nor the time to outproduce the Americans nor the Soviets.


1. N5 will not be able to disarm a surviving nation, period.

2. In case of India, before negotiating with N5 we will be aware that out of 5 it were 2 (USA and China) who made Pakistan a nuclear monster. We will simply tell them to take a hike.Hey, dummy. You've crossed the threshold once. The N5 will not let you cross it again. In case, you're ignoring the point - 20,000 nuke when you have less than 20 left.

And the Americans and Soviets have enough stocks for 40,000 more. The fissile materials from their disarmed nukes went into storage.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 16:01
If you see in my very first or second post I have clearly talked about the scenario (sticking with the topic in hand) that when one of our city is already down by a terrorist nuclear strike, then in that case India will retaliate Pakistan without even asking nuclear forensics.You have more than one enemy. Only a fool does not look around first at who hit him before striking back.


1. If we will delay It will set a bad example for others. They will learn an easy way to punish us.So, you pushed them into a corner to fight a nuclear war.


2. If it was not Pakistan but someone else, even in that case Pakistan should go down and no one gets our remaining arsenal.Here's another thought. If I was Afghanistan and I got hold of an Iranian nuke, I just got India to kill Pakistan for me.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 16:17
You've crossed the threshold once. The N5 will not let you cross it again. In case, you're ignoring the point - 20,000 nuke when you have less than 20 left.

And the Americans and Soviets have enough stocks for 40,000 more. The fissile materials from their disarmed nukes went into storage.

Show me a statute that you will not let us cross the threshold again. You want to act on your own or form a consensus with other N4 ?

Can you afford 20 remaining coming your way ? No way in hell.

By now (after retaliating) we have told everyone that we can cross the threshold once and we can cross it again.

You want to sit and do nothing you will get a disobedient India.

You have repeatedly said it is a game of numbers, I call it a misread of K.Sunder ji, given there will be ambiguity all the time with the numbers and numbers are increasing as we talk. You digested the bluff of K. Sunder Ji that even less is enough but you did not put your self in his position when he saw the war is already lost but he still want to develop enough without being alarming or sounding impulsive. You failed to ask yourself why there are similarity in strategic thinking vis a vis nuclear doctrines of both India and China.

It will be never to do with numbers it will be to do with, can you afford attacking a threshold crossing nation when she is not your enemy and she has retaliated by staying true to its declared doctrine.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 16:19
Here's another thought. If I was Afghanistan and I got hold of an Iranian nuke, I just got India to kill Pakistan for me.

Absolutely, you can take down Iraq post 9/11 why wouldn't India Pakistan in that case.

ambidex
21 Jan 14,, 16:44
If you want to explore that possibility, fine. It was part of a disarming first strike by Soviet think tanks to bypass early missile detection. Suitcase nukes smuggled in to various capitals and detonated before the missiles fly.

We've also had suitcase nukes for our special forces to get to the hard to hit by missile locations.

So, no, there is no such thing as a terrorist strike. It is only the beginning of a nuclear war. If one goes, they all go.


So I stand correct, there will be nothing like pushing Pakistan to the corner fighting nuclear war. They have already imposed nuclear war on us. That terrorist strike will be strategic strike.


Iran. North Korea.

No intention,
No capacity,
No motive,
Watched by USA,


Here's the freaking point. You can't obliterate Pakistan. All you can do is Balkanize it. You are not going to kill every Pakistani man, woman, child, dog. And they can do the same to you.


India will never cross the nuclear threshold if it doesn't have the blue print it practises to take down PA and all its military infrastructure. The civilians can not raise the regiments.


Nothing to do with geography. Everything to do with target selection.

Well, I will run with my tail in legs if you will start talking about operational level tactics and details, I am not the expert. India has bigger geography they have to look for more targets. Neither they have capabilities nor they have range.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 16:51
Had this guy somehow gotten a nuke and then managed set off the nuke; then India, to paraphrase Humphrey Bougard, would two things - take it and complain about it. This crap about firing off nukes, giving the P5 the finger and whatever else - wouldn't happen. A lot of bitching would occur, some chest beating, cross border shelling, creating a crisis and then allowing themselves to be talked down. Might end up with some international inspection of Pak nukes, which would take weeks or months to set up and deal with Chinese/Pak stonewalling for months after that.

Back the status quo.

Thirteen pages of fantasy regarding the response.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B76s0SF47xw

I don't agree with you on this front. I agree India can't afford the aftermath's of a full scale Nuclear war , If we are going down we will take down them with us. It is better than living with the thought that we let out enemy slip away after such a terrible attack on us. India on some points takes it decisions based on emotions of the general public , and the emotions of general public after an act like this would be aligned with what many Indian posters has posted here. It might look like a bravado/foolish act, but hey we would be glad we did it. Sometimes sacrifices are required for the greater good and if we had to start from the scratch for taking down an enemy then so be it , even if it takes us 2 decades or more to recover financially and more for other factors. It will also be good for us, remember what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did to Japan ? They came back strong both as a country and individually.

And for all who think strategically and say we wont do it , we might surprise you.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 17:09
Look, you dumb idiot. If India thinks that 200 nukes can inflict unacceptable damage on any attacker, then what the hell do you think that India can absorb 200 nukes and have acceptable damage.


Sir , I believe what he is trying to prove is Pakistan can send all their Nukes flying in to hit strategic points and make a huge impact. However considering the total area of the countries , Pakistan (307,374 sq miles) and India (1.269 million sq miles). IMHO we can inflict greater damage and even to the extent of wiping them off at the cost of loosing 2/3rd of our population. Would like to know your opinion on this.

troung
21 Jan 14,, 17:16
It will also be good for us, remember what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did to Japan ?

With assistance from the US and catching a post-war boom. Plenty of other nations with low standards of living fall to shit for far less then having all/most of their urban centers blown to bits in an afternoon. Oh yeah and of course the war which would follow the lobbing of nukes at population centers.


If we are going down we will take down them with us. It is better than living with the thought that we let out enemy slip away after such a terrible attack on us. India on some points takes it decisions based on emotions of the general public , and the emotions of general public after an act like this would be aligned with what many Indian posters has posted here. It might look like a bravado/foolish act, but hey we would be glad we did it. Sometimes sacrifices are required for the greater good and if we had to start from the scratch for taking down an enemy then so be it

It might what people may think they want on the front end - to destroy Pakistani urban centers for the loss of an Indian one; followed of course by the loss of the rest of India's urban centers. Ignoring whether or not that would be a net positive for the rest of the world - it wouldn't happen. They would end up with "shuttle diplomacy" and come up with a "confidence builders" aimed at a "comprehensive solution" and the like until the mood passes. Be late to the border picnic, shelling, maybe an air strike or two on the border, lots of angry fist waving, Pakistani denials, lots of talking, a few lynchings, a bunch of international conferences, inspections which go nowhere and then status quo.


And for all who think strategically and say we wont do it , we might surprise you.

I think you would be in for the surprise.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 17:42
No intention,
No capacity,
No motive,
Watched by USA,Are you kidding me? Panama just charged North Korea with weapons smuggling and NK owes India some $9bil. A war which would crashed the GOI is an easy way to get rid of that debt. In case you have not been following, yes, KJU is that crazy. He shot his own uncle. Starting a nuclear war between India and Pakisan to clear his debt ain't out of his insane thoughts.


India will never cross the nuclear threshold if it doesn't have the blue print it practises to take down PA and all its military infrastructure. The civilians can not raise the regiments.You CANNOT be that stupid. Where do you think the regiments come from? Sparta?


Well, I will run with my tail in legs if you will start talking about operational level tactics and details, I am not the expert. India has bigger geography they have to look for more targets. Neither they have capabilities nor they have range.Oh for crying outloud. I just gave you a target selection that would halt India in its tracks. If I researched it more, I'm sure I can come up with several others that would destroy Dehli's ability to rule India and to inflict massive casualties at the same time.


IMHO we can inflict greater damage and even to the extent of wiping them off at the cost of loosing 2/3rd of our population. Would like to know your opinion on this.You can't lose 2/3 of your population and remain the India you are today. Hell, there won't even be an India since each region will have to become a country on its own in order to survive. The Bengalis can't send wheat to Kashmere if they need it for themselves, espeically with no one paying for it.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 17:51
With assistance from the US and catching a post-war boom. Plenty of other nations with low standards of living fall to shit for far less then having all/most of their urban centers blown to bits in an afternoon. Oh yeah and of course the war which would follow the lobbing of nukes at population centers.

Whether for the best or the worst , many key decisions had been influenced by the general public's emotions. Considering that if the ruling govt at that time sits mum and does nothing sort of giving it back , trust me whatever else they do will just simply wont work. Like I said we are mainly emotion driven people for the better or worse. We are ready for the fallouts of an Nuclear war in case of an act like that. Ready as in ready to accept the outcomes of that decision.


It might what people may think they want on the front end - to destroy Pakistani urban centers for the loss of an Indian one; followed of course by the loss of the rest of India's urban centers. Ignoring whether or not that would be a net positive for the rest of the world - it wouldn't happen. They would end up with "shuttle diplomacy" and come up with a "confidence builders" aimed at a "comprehensive solution" and the like until the mood passes. Be late to the border picnic, shelling, maybe an air strike or two on the border, lots of angry fist waving, Pakistani denials, lots of talking, a few lynchings, a bunch of international conferences, inspections which go nowhere and then status quo.


We are not talking about another 26/11 or another parliamentary attack which we will easily be forgotten after sometime. We are talking about Nuclear explosion on the motherland and however foolish it might be we will do anything possible to eliminate the threat once and for all at the cost of living with the consequences. At Least we would have the satisfaction that we shoved it up their ass rather than starting inquiries and having it run for a long time. A conventional strike would be out of question IMHO. Considering politically I would be glad to support someone who can give it back in the same coin at a cost.


I think you would be in for the surprise.

Don't think so

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 17:52
India will never cross the nuclear threshold if it doesn't have the blue print it practises to take down PA and all its military infrastructure. The civilians can not raise the regiments.I'm going to add to this point. Target selection is not set in stone. It's dynamic and you don't toss all your nukes at once. Half up front. Then half your remaining arsenal, and half that again. You look at what's destroyed. Did it achieve your objective? Nuking Islambad city hall ain't going to do you any good if the government already moved to the bomb shelters. Nuking it again certainly won't reduce Pakistani C3.

In which case, Pakistan has a way bigger advantage than India. They have a much bigger target selection list than India. Not that it matters much. Both sides would run out of nukes before they run out of targets but both sides would have inflicted unacceptable losses.

Losing 2/3 of your population is by no means an acceptable loss.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 18:08
You can't lose 2/3 of your population and remain the India you are today. Hell, there won't even be an India since each region will have to become a country on its own in order to survive. The Bengalis can't send wheat to Kashmere if they need it for themselves, espeically with no one paying for it.

Sir, two third of our population is still a heck of a lot don't you think ? Yes, at times like that each region will be for it's own. But it will never be divided into individual countries. We have a lot of issues and I agree, however flimsy it might sound, we never abandon a brother in times like these. However long it might take and whatever might be the consequences we will thrive and will rebuild our nation.

DarthSiddius
21 Jan 14,, 18:11
Sir, two third of our population is still a heck of a lot don't you think ? Yes, at times like that each region will be for it's own. But it will never be divided into individual countries. We have a lot of issues and I agree, however flimsy it might sound, we never abandon a brother in times like these. However long it might take and whatever might be the consequences we will thrive and will rebuild our nation however long it might take.

Yeah, but this scenario involves my family burning - NOT acceptable to me, and countless others.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 18:21
Yeah, but this scenario involves my family burning - NOT acceptable to me, and countless others.

Since this being a hypothetical scenario, if they are able to sneak a Nuke into our country and able to blast it don't you think they could do that in successfully in other cities which would still end up having many families burned to the ground ?

I respect your opinion though.

DarthSiddius
21 Jan 14,, 18:26
This would turn a potential danger into a certain danger. Think about it, what good would it do for India to do a tit for tat strike (notwithstanding the Pakistani state's complicity). There are more severe/productive punitive measures than anarchy - which would inevitably prevail on both the sides if nukes were ever tossed in numbers.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 18:58
This would turn a potential danger into a certain danger. Think about it, what good would it do for India to do a tit for tat strike (notwithstanding the Pakistani state's complicity). There are more severe/productive punitive measures than anarchy - which would inevitably prevail on both the sides if nukes were ever tossed in numbers.

As much as I would love to avoid a scenario what other measures can you think can be done at this point ? Having an all out conventional war ? Still would drain billions of dollars ending up in a almost similar scenario minus the effects of Nukes. Once we wage war Pakistan would immediately threaten with Nuke strike if we dont stop. We will NEVER be able to do ANYTHING if you ask me. What have we done with 26/11 ? What have we done for parliamentary attack ? What have we done for countless bombings in our country resulting in many lives lost ? What have we done so far of anything significance that made Pakistan change it's wrongdoings ? Some countries will sure step in favour of them and we are again left with doing nothing. Pakistan would deny EVERYTHING you can do a gazillion things like having a council to investigate if Pakistan is involved , international team investigating the Nuke arsenal , for one too many things truth will never come out nor it will be punished for it unless it is for some well developed Western nation like US. And what kind of punishment are we having in our mind here.

For those who all say we should do investigation or have a international council do investigation ending in the conviction of Pakistan then what ? Imply trade blockades , putting financial constraints ? It will give them all the more reason to go even more rogue since they got nothing else to loose or can do. Then the US or some other powerful nation steps in and either Nukes them to stone age ? or kill every last one of them ? If such a scenario comes out I am 100% sure Pakistan will try to take India with them. Then what ?

If any one can come up with a scenario which will put maximum hurt on them without we getting hurt please express it here.

DarthSiddius
21 Jan 14,, 19:14
What would be the world's reaction to a nuke going off in India? Everyone, including Pakistan, is bound to have an opinion (informed or not).

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 19:14
If any one can come up with a scenario which will put maximum hurt on them without we getting hurt please express it here.

Define maximum hurt.

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 19:15
What would be the world's reaction to a nuke going off in India? Everyone's bound to have an opinion (informed or not).

I would check the supplies of water, food and ammo at home.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 19:58
Define maximum hurt.

The one that justifies wiping out an entire city using Nuke. Use your imagination :whome:

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 19:59
For those who all say we should do investigation or have a international council do investigation ending in the conviction of Pakistan then what ? Imply trade blockades , putting financial constraints ? It will give them all the more reason to go even more rogue since they got nothing else to loose or can do. Then the US or some other powerful nation steps in and either Nukes them to stone age ? or kill every last one of them ? If such a scenario comes out I am 100% sure Pakistan will try to take India with them. Then what ?A terror nuke strike would most certainly invite nuke.

But there is another reason to wait. It gives your military time to get ready. Because I will guarrantee you one thing. If it was a Pakistani terror nuke strike, their military would have had at least warning orders and the advantage would be theirs if your army strikes unprepared.

If it's not the Pakistanis, you've just avoided burning millions of babies.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 20:08
Sir, two third of our population is still a heck of a lot don't you think ? Yes, at times like that each region will be for it's own. But it will never be divided into individual countries. We have a lot of issues and I agree, however flimsy it might sound, we never abandon a brother in times like these. However long it might take and whatever might be the consequences we will thrive and will rebuild our nation.Really?

Dehli just ordered your father to take all the food in his house and walk it all to Dehli, leaving nothing in your house. Would you do it?

Dehli just ordered your only surviving doctor in your neighbourhood to goto Kashmir for the indefenite future. Would you let him go?

You forget your own history. The India you have today was conquered through war. Not united through brotherly love. When the chips are you and it's you or the other guy, you will always choose yours and your own. You might feel sorry for your neighbour but he's not watching your women and babies starve or dying from sickness.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 20:45
Really?

Dehli just ordered your father to take all the food in his house and walk it all to Dehli, leaving nothing in your house. Would you do it?

Dehli just ordered your only surviving doctor in your neighbourhood to goto Kashmir for the indefenite future. Would you let him go?

You forget your own history. The India you have today was conquered through war. Not united through brotherly love. When the chips are you and it's you or the other guy, you will always choose yours and your own. You might feel sorry for your neighbour but he's not watching your women and babies starve or dying from sickness.

Colonel this is the type of thinking between kingdoms and feuding kings that actually allowed India to be conquered militarily. One by one, incrementally. The country as we know it may be destroyed for a generation, even two. But the idea of India will outlast that, passed on by the adults to the children, by the children who live through the war to their children. And we will rebuild. Slowly but surely. We do not need to be an economic or military power again. Not immediately at least. Its a big land, and to put it crudely, if land ha been laid to waste temporarily, so has the dependent population been culled. Those who remain can survive and eventually even thrive off the land and the sea, with monsoon water and mountain rivers. One does not need trains and diesel trucks to traverse the country which we have been traversing on foot and by cart and animal for millenia.

I am yet to read up counter population - I will. But what Stuart Slade showed China is not what Pakistan can do to India. Even if all 200 of their nukes hit Indian targets, which is not a given, taking the learnings from you of 3 nukes minimum per target, and the fact that their nukes are small, there are still way too many targets in a country of India's size. In fact, it would take half their arsenal to just destroy our rail network (@ 3 nukes for each of the 30 nodes you identified). The ports will go first I think. Then our big dams. The military targets too. Seats of governance (Delhi) and finance (Mumbai). Power and communications. It will not be 2/3 of us who go down, but around a third, max, before Pakistan ceases to exist. You spoke about what losing 100 million would do to India. I am talking 400 million. Most of us in the cities and towns gone. That still leaves 800 million of us in the villages. We built modern India starting 1947 to where we are today, largely unaided, non aligned, starting with 400 million Indians Colonel. When the idea of India was still being reintroduced to the populace after centuries of servitude. That idea has taken firm root and grown now. Its not going to die until you kill off all 1.2 billion of us. Because that's what it will take.

Agnostic Muslim
21 Jan 14,, 21:44
Let me put it in a context you can understand.

Supposed you are India with your sidearm in your hoster. Someone just shot you, you look around and you seek all the guys with the AK-47s with their barrels pointing straight up but you see your worst enemy trying to load his pistol and trying to aim that pistol at you,

That's the terrorist scenario.

Now, the American scenario. You're the guy with the baddest machine gun on the block. You've just been shot. You look up and see everyone who has an AK-47 started looking outwards looking for the bad guy.

In case you don't get the hint, both Russia and China rushed defenses to American embassies and NATO started flying fighter cover over their respective capitals protecting American embassies.

You are fucked up.
OoE,

As I said, I am in favor of the Pakistani leadership engaging in the 'confidence building measures' you outlined in your earlier posts and not engaging in military mobilizations that might be perceived as 'escalations' IF the Indian response can be expected to be a rational one that does not involve '2 hour deadlines' and 'nuking Pakistan without establishing Pakistani complicity'.

Much of the Indian opinion (military or civilian) reflected on boards such as these does not inspire confidence in a 'rational Indian response' that seeks to first identify the perpetrator of a WMD event in India rather than 'nuking Pakistan' immediately. Of course I am not suggesting that the opinion on these boards is necessarily reflective of actual Indian policy, but for the purposes of this discussion I used Lemontree's comments (suggesting that India would nuke Pakistan irrespective of Pakistani complicity in a WMD event in India) as a starting point, and tried to argue why such a policy on the part of India would be self-defeating. The arguments over 'full Pakistani military mobilizations' are based on a hypothetical scenario in which people like LT/Ambidex/SatedBuddha etc. are responsible for taking decisions in response to a WMD event in India.

If it boils down to Pakistan facing an 'insane, irrational India', I don't see the 'sane and rational approach' you outlined as having any deterrent impact on Indian decision makers - the arguments being made by Indians here say it all - they want Pakistan destroyed in such a scenario irrespective of Pakistani complicity. My argument is that a full conventional and nuclear military mobilization on the part of Pakistan following such a WMD event in India might actually 'knock some sense' into the minds of the Indian leadership, along with possibly alarming the global powers into pressuring India to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. In such a scenario, would the US (or others) act militarily (or threaten to) in order to prevent a knee-jerk Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan?

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 21:50
I would like to introduce a new element to the debate of "the day after"

What would be the role of the Indian diaspora around the world in rebuilding the motherland? Would it be just money and machinery or would there be some/many/few/none returning to help? Doctors, engineers, agriculturists, technicians. Would this form a backbone of some sort of educated highly specialized leadership that could be part of India's overall survivability?

What about the large investments Indian industries have made overseas in the past decade or two. Could that manufacturing not be diverted completely back to India?

More importantly, with all our ports (and probably refineries) gone, how do supertankers dock offshore and transfer oil to India? With the little matter of how do we pay for it? Do we see a danger of East India Company type scenarios in our desperation for foreign help?

Just some points off the top of my head to this Mad Max type post apocalypse scenario.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 22:24
A terror nuke strike would most certainly invite nuke.

But there is another reason to wait. It gives your military time to get ready. Because I will guarrantee you one thing. If it was a Pakistani terror nuke strike, their military would have had at least warning orders and the advantage would be theirs if your army strikes unprepared.

If it's not the Pakistanis, you've just avoided burning millions of babies.

But Sir, we are talking about retaliatory Nuke strike and not a conventional war are we ? If a Nuke is blasted in India I bet ISI and or Pakistan military will most certainly have a hand in it. We will know better and I am pretty sure there are strategies already planned in case of a scenario like this. If you are talking about intersecting the missiles mid air does Pakistan have capabilities to achieve that ?

commander
21 Jan 14,, 22:31
Really?

Dehli just ordered your father to take all the food in his house and walk it all to Dehli, leaving nothing in your house. Would you do it?

Dehli just ordered your only surviving doctor in your neighbourhood to goto Kashmir for the indefenite future. Would you let him go?

You forget your own history. The India you have today was conquered through war. Not united through brotherly love. When the chips are you and it's you or the other guy, you will always choose yours and your own. You might feel sorry for your neighbour but he's not watching your women and babies starve or dying from sickness.

Sir, that was a long time ago and even when Sardhar Vallabhai Patel was uniting India after independence only a couple of kings tried to fight since they don't want to loose their stronghold on their kingdom and not the people. The 60 long years after freedom and the years before that fighting for our freedom, as one, has taught us a lot.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 22:45
Show me a statute that you will not let us cross the threshold again. You want to act on your own or form a consensus with other N4 ?It's called nuclear war doctrine. You've crossed the line. You will not be allowed to cross it again.


Can you afford 20 remaining coming your way ? No way in hell.That's the point. We rather risk, a very small risk at that, that 20 coming our way than to allow you to build another 100 to throw at us. Another thing, we know where your ICBMs will be. We know where your ICBM factory is. We now watch it 24/7 and we can follow trucks in and out of that place. We will get to them before you can launch.


By now (after retaliating) we have told everyone that we can cross the threshold once and we can cross it again.Not if we attack first after now a wrecked India. Your military C4ISR is now in shambles. You've got your hands full with rescue work in India. You've already reviewed where all your nukes are.


You have repeatedly said it is a game of numbers, I call it a misread of K.Sunder ji, given there will be ambiguity all the time with the numbers and numbers are increasing as we talk. You digested the bluff of K. Sunder Ji that even less is enough but you did not put your self in his position when he saw the war is already lost but he still want to develop enough without being alarming or sounding impulsive. You failed to ask yourself why there are similarity in strategic thinking vis a vis nuclear doctrines of both India and China.Even Rie and Sundarji cannot disobey the laws of physics. We know how many nuclear plants you have. We know how long they've been working. We have a real good idea how much fissile materials you have.


It will be never to do with numbers it will be to do with, can you afford attacking a threshold crossing nation when she is not your enemy and she has retaliated by staying true to its declared doctrine.Who do you think we are? Pakistan? Unlike Pakistan, we can attack everywhere your nukes can be. You've also missed my portion where we now have conventional capbabilities. China has 1400 conventionally armed HE missiles. At five missiles per target, that's 250 targets that they can hit. You say 20 nukes left? Do the freaking math. And that's China alone.

Never mind the 20,000 nukes that we can unleash on India.

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 22:55
I was wondering, let's say it is Pakistan who is complicit, if India starts conventional retaliation and crosses certain points, what would Pakistan do? Lob nukes? Where? In India or on Indian forces in Pakistan? Will they be able to do so? From what I have read in other threads US and China are pretty sure where Pak Nukes are. Will they let them go? The bottom line is there is less in stake for India and Pakistan will be forced to absorb the retaliatory blow.

If I were in someone in Indian chain of command I'd go with conventional mass retaliation after I find the perp. I am sharing this view as if India is my motherland.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 22:55
Colonel this is the type of thinking between kingdoms and feuding kings that actually allowed India to be conquered militarily. One by one, incrementally. The country as we know it may be destroyed for a generation, even two. But the idea of India will outlast that, passed on by the adults to the children, by the children who live through the war to their children. And we will rebuild. Slowly but surely. We do not need to be an economic or military power again. Not immediately at least. Its a big land, and to put it crudely, if land ha been laid to waste temporarily, so has the dependent population been culled. Those who remain can survive and eventually even thrive off the land and the sea, with monsoon water and mountain rivers. One does not need trains and diesel trucks to traverse the country which we have been traversing on foot and by cart and animal for millenia.You're not getting it. There is no national authority. There would even be no national transportation system. What one side has, they cannot even get it to the other side. I provided the examples to show you that you cannot abandon yourself for others. You have to rely on yourself.


I am yet to read up counter population - I will. But what Stuart Slade showed China is not what Pakistan can do to India. Even if all 200 of their nukes hit Indian targets, which is not a given, taking the learnings from you of 3 nukes minimum per target, and the fact that their nukes are small, there are still way too many targets in a country of India's size. In fact, it would take half their arsenal to just destroy our rail network (@ 3 nukes for each of the 30 nodes you identified). The ports will go first I think. Then our big dams. The military targets too. Seats of governance (Delhi) and finance (Mumbai). Power and communications. It will not be 2/3 of us who go down, but around a third, max, before Pakistan ceases to exist. You spoke about what losing 100 million would do to India. I am talking 400 million. Most of us in the cities and towns gone. That still leaves 800 million of us in the villages. We built modern India starting 1947 to where we are today, largely unaided, non aligned, starting with 400 million Indians Colonel. When the idea of India was still being reintroduced to the populace after centuries of servitude. That idea has taken firm root and grown now. Its not going to die until you kill off all 1.2 billion of us. Because that's what it will take.No. Counter population is pure murder. It has nothing to do with destroying buildings or armies or anything. The target would be your rice fields and the nukes would be airburst to spread radiactive particles as far as possible. I wrote cobalt salted bombs. These are weapons that be lethal for up to 5 years. Imagine a crop failure for 5 years.

No one has yet to make a cobalt bomb but it's not that hard and can done retroactively.

Why no one has done it is because we're not that crazy, not even Pakistan.

troung
21 Jan 14,, 22:56
Still would drain billions of dollars ending up in a almost similar scenario minus the effects of Nukes.

One city lost to terrorists versus 20-30 lost to Pakistani nukes.


Once we wage war Pakistan would immediately threaten with Nuke strike if we dont stop. We will NEVER be able to do ANYTHING if you ask me. What have we done with 26/11 ? What have we done for parliamentary attack ? What have we done for countless bombings in our country resulting in many lives lost ?

Did nothing and complained about it.


What have we done so far of anything significance that made Pakistan change it's wrongdoings ? Some countries will sure step in favour of them and we are again left with doing nothing. Pakistan would deny EVERYTHING you can do a gazillion things like having a council to investigate if Pakistan is involved , international team investigating the Nuke arsenal , for one too many things truth will never come out nor it will be punished for it unless it is for some well developed Western nation like US. And what kind of punishment are we having in our mind here.

They would do pretty much nothing had the IM succeeded in finding a nuke, finding someone who could set it off, getting in place, setting it off. Pakistan might deport some high profile terrorists and allow time consuming inspections, confidence building measures and diplomacy to wear things out. There wouldn't be nukes flying into Pakistan.


Whether for the best or the worst , many key decisions had been influenced by the general public's emotions. Considering that if the ruling govt at that time sits mum and does nothing sort of giving it back , trust me whatever else they do will just simply wont work. Like I said we are mainly emotion driven people for the better or worse. We are ready for the fallouts of an Nuclear war in case of an act like that. Ready as in ready to accept the outcomes of that decision.

Emotionally driven people who haven't been in a major war with Pakistan since 1971 - before nukes came in the picture and despite numerous incidents which would have provoked other nations to slug it out.

Easy to say the Indian public would trade their cities for Pakistan's when it is some entirely theoretical exercise - in reality if some terrorist nuke were to blow up in India - and if Pakistan did the usual denial- there would be random border shelling, maybe an air strike, and a shit load of conferences and shuttle diplomacy. Some things you can say with near certainty.


I would like to introduce a new element to the debate of "the day after"' What about the large investments Indian industries have made overseas in the past decade or two. Could that manufacturing not be diverted completely back to India?

LOL forget that- what about the rebel groups that are currently around and the groups of indigent young men who would join up or make their own bandit groups. Get flattened on day 1 then have whats left of their military/paramilitary forces slug it out with Pakistan for a month or more. Add in opportunism from places which are in better shape. Forget overseas investments into India you probably wouldn't have an "India" anymore.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 23:00
Sir, that was a long time ago and even when Sardhar Vallabhai Patel was uniting India after independence only a couple of kings tried to fight since they don't want to loose their stronghold on their kingdom and not the people. The 60 long years after freedom and the years before that fighting for our freedom, as one, has taught us a lot.Taught what? Feed another man while your baby starves? That is what we're talking about. You have to choose who is to die. There would only so much medicine, so much food that can be sent. What one man eats, another will not be able to. Someone in Dehli said we will have to let babies die so we can have working men, would you send the food out, especially when Dehli cannot come and take your food?

Agnostic Muslim
21 Jan 14,, 23:07
I was wondering, let's say it is Pakistan who is complicit, if India starts conventional retaliation and crosses certain points, what would Pakistan do? Lob nukes? Where? In India or on Indian forces in Pakistan? Will they be able to do so? From what I have read in other threads US and China are pretty sure where Pak Nukes are. Will they let them go? The bottom line is there is less in stake for India and Pakistan will be forced to absorb the retaliatory blow.

If I were in someone in Indian chain of command I'd go with conventional mass retaliation after I find the perp. I am sharing this view as if India is my motherland.
I would think that Pakistan's military and civilian nuclear programs would be finished, voluntarily or through the use of international military force, after a nuclear event in India with the nuclear materials being traced back to Pakistan. I don't think even the Chinese would be interested in selling conventional weapons to Pakistan after such an event.

Doktor
21 Jan 14,, 23:10
I would think that Pakistan's military and civilian nuclear programs would be finished, voluntarily or through the use of military force, after a nuclear event in India with the nuclear materials being traced back to Pakistan.

The victim, in this case India, will be let to vent out their anger and carry on the punitive expedition. It's the less costly option in my view. Something the other powers can live with and what would make India somewhat satisfied with the outcome.

sated buddha
21 Jan 14,, 23:10
Taught what? Feed another man while your baby starves? That is what we're talking about. You have to choose who is to die. There would only so much medicine, so much food that can be sent. What one man eats, another will not be able to. Someone in Dehli said we will have to let babies die so we can have working men, would you send the food out, especially when Dehli cannot come and take your food?

Slade paints a different picture. Able bodied men come third to fertile women and fresh non irradiated babies in the triage pecking order. Precious commodities to rebuilding, they will get what food there is first. Men will kill for that. Though I'm wondering if that's more a scenario painted for a US USSR type confrontation given their populations and the number and size of their weapons. With 200 nukes against 1.2 billion, it will be very different.

Agnostic Muslim
21 Jan 14,, 23:16
The victim, in this case India, will be let to vent out their anger and carry on the punitive expedition. It's the less costly option in my view. Something the other powers can live with and what would make India somewhat satisfied with the outcome.
You are viewing the situation as having implications solely in the Indo-Pak context. I would argue that an unprovoked Pakistani nuclear attack in India (by non-state actors or state actors), with nuclear materials traced back to Pakistan, poses an enormous risk to the international community. If Pakistani warheads and/or fissile material can make their way into the hands of 'non-State actors' using them against India, then it is simply a matter of time before attempts at attacking Western targets take place. I don't think the West/Russia/China are going to sit around doing nothing given the threats they face from extremist Islamist ideologies. Even as a Pakistani nationalist I would want Pakistan's entire nuclear program dismantled under international supervision, through force if necessary, for displaying such reckless disregard in using (or safeguarding) weapons of mass destruction.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 23:19
200 nukes aimed at counter-value targets is not going to kill 1.2 billion people. It's designed to collapse control of the country. The main targets would be your communication nodes, ie your rail hubs, where you need to gather say food/medicine to be shipped to the rest of the country.

What has been left unsaid that even if a nuke goes off at a train station, a lot of people are going to die and a lot of people is going to need help. With the collapse of central authority, that help is not coming. Going by guestimates here, with the size of Pakistani nukes. 20 targets right off the bat with a guesstimated casualties of 200-300 thousand dead and over a million wounded at each target site right across India.

That's 20 million burn victims needing immediate medical attention. No one on earth can handle that kind of volume. I can't even imagine handling 1 million burn victims.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 23:28
I was wondering, let's say it is Pakistan who is complicit, if India starts conventional retaliation and crosses certain points, what would Pakistan do? Lob nukes? Where? In India or on Indian forces in Pakistan? Will they be able to do so? From what I have read in other threads US and China are pretty sure where Pak Nukes are. Will they let them go? The bottom line is there is less in stake for India and Pakistan will be forced to absorb the retaliatory blow.

If I were in someone in Indian chain of command I'd go with conventional mass retaliation after I find the perp. I am sharing this view as if India is my motherland.

This all depends on the said countries ability to stop Pakistan from using it's Nukes. Lets say during the all out conventional war Pakistan has dropped their Nuke on Indian army, that will for sure call for an Indian retaliation. Still not resulting in a favourable outcome.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 23:32
200 nukes aimed at counter-value targets is not going to kill 1.2 billion people. It's designed to collapse control of the country. The main targets would be your communication nodes, ie your rail hubs, where you need to gather say food/medicine to be shipped to the rest of the country.

What has been left unsaid that even if a nuke goes off at a train station, a lot of people are going to die and a lot of people is going to need help. With the collapse of central authority, that help is not coming. Going by guestimates here, with the size of Pakistani nukes. 20 targets right off the bat with a guesstimated casualties of 200-300 thousand dead and over a million wounded at each target site right across India.

That's 20 million burn victims needing immediate medical attention. No one on earth can handle that kind of volume. I can't even imagine handling 1 million burn victims.

Sir, just curious on how much of a Nuclear material (not sure of the correct word to use here) is each missile going to carry ? both India and Pakistan sides ?

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 14,, 23:34
Pakistani nukes are estimated to be in the 10-15 kt range (Pakistani claims of sub-kt yields is pure fiction) while Indian yields are estimated to be the 20-40kt range.

commander
21 Jan 14,, 23:57
A terror nuke strike would most certainly invite nuke.

But there is another reason to wait. It gives your military time to get ready.

I missed out to raise a question on the point mentioned by Colonel earlier. If (God forbid) such an event happens what kind of preparation time are we talking about here? hours, days, months? to retaliate at the earliest be it Nuclear or Conventional ?

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 14,, 00:04
It would take two hours for India to mate a warhead to a missile and I say another 30 minutes to go through all the checks (ie, target data, fuel load, safety checks, etc) before the missile can be launched.

And while there would be a goto default target list, it would not be finetuned, ie have the Pakistanis started moving their nukes out yet? Have they been mating warheads to delivery vehicles? What's the status of their deployed forces? Are they receiving or manning the jump off points? Basically, if a nuclear strike is to be launched, you want to do maximum damage to the enemy while trying to minimize your own vulnerability

commander
22 Jan 14,, 00:06
Pakistani nukes are estimated to be in the 10-15 kt range (Pakistani claims of sub-kt yields is pure fiction) while Indian yields are estimated to be the 20-40kt range.

I have stumbled across this link while trying to find out the radius of the effect and considering what you have said on the Nuclear Yields (thanks for the word :) ) won't we be able to inflict far more damage than what they can do to us?

HYDESim: High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator (http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html)

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 14,, 00:13
False data. That estimation does not take into effect building structures. Basically concrete has a way of channelling the blast upwards. And it misses the point about nuclear targetting. We want to kill the train station or the TV tower. If we wanted to kill people, we aim for the sewage treatment plant. Chloera will kill a lot more people than the nuke will.

Doktor
22 Jan 14,, 00:43
This all depends on the said countries ability to stop Pakistan from using it's Nukes. Lets say during the all out conventional war Pakistan has dropped their Nuke on Indian army, that will for sure call for an Indian retaliation. Still not resulting in a favourable outcome.

Americans alone stopped the Soviets. What makes you think US, Russia and China wont be able to persuade Pakistan?

Doktor
22 Jan 14,, 00:47
You are viewing the situation as having implications solely in the Indo-Pak context.
This is the scenario. And no, I am viewing it as a whole. Otherwise I wouldn't risk a conventional Army to cross Indus, just to be vaporized.


I would argue that an unprovoked Pakistani nuclear attack in India (by non-state actors or state actors), with nuclear materials traced back to Pakistan, poses an enormous risk to the international community. If Pakistani warheads and/or fissile material can make their way into the hands of 'non-State actors' using them against India, then it is simply a matter of time before attempts at attacking Western targets take place. I don't think the West/Russia/China are going to sit around doing nothing given the threats they face from extremist Islamist ideologies. Even as a Pakistani nationalist I would want Pakistan's entire nuclear program dismantled under international supervision, through force if necessary, for displaying such reckless disregard in using (or safeguarding) weapons of mass destruction.
My guesses are it will happen if it's a Pakistani nuke.

Agnostic Muslim
22 Jan 14,, 02:34
My guesses are it will happen if it's a Pakistani nuke.
Which leads into the questions I asked of OoE in my last response to him - would the international community (primarily the US given her unique military standing) take the same approach in 'dismantling the Indian nuclear program' IF the Indians were to carry out a nuclear strike on Pakistan after a nuclear event in India that Pakistan was not complicit in?

Would the international community (US) be willing to preemptively neutralize Indian nuclear warheads in an attempt to stop India from carrying out a knee-jerk nuclear strike on Pakistan (thereby escalating into a full fledged regional nuclear war), as many of the Indian commentators on this thread would like to see?

Doktor
22 Jan 14,, 02:37
Which leads into the questions I asked of OoE in my last response to him - would the international community (primarily the US given her unique military standing) take the same approach in 'dismantling the Indian nuclear program' IF the Indians were to carry out a nuclear strike on Pakistan after a nuclear event in India that Pakistan was not complicit in?

Would the international community (US) be willing to neutralize Indian nuclear warheads in an attempt to prevent India from carrying out a knee-jerk nuclear strike on Pakistan (thereby resulting in a full fledged regional nuclear war), as many of the Indian commentators on this thread would like to see?

Re-read Col's replies. He said in case of nuclear exchange both countries will be stripped of their nuclear programs.

Agnostic Muslim
22 Jan 14,, 02:42
Re-read Col's replies. He said in case of nuclear exchange both countries will be stripped of their nuclear programs.
Why should Pakistan pay any price whatsoever (in terms of dismantling her nuclear program or international sanctions of any kind) due to the actions of an insane and irrational Indian leadership that chooses to start a nuclear war irrespective of Pakistani complicity in a WMD event in India?

If anything, after such a nuclear exchange, Pakistan's reasons for retaining a nuclear deterrent (while India is stripped of hers) become stronger given the conventional military disparity between the two countries - Pakistan will need nuclear weapons to ward off the same 'insane and irrational Indian leadership' from provoking a conventional military war on Pakistan down the road.

DarthSiddius
22 Jan 14,, 03:10
Why should Pakistan pay any price whatsoever (in terms of dismantling her nuclear program or international sanctions of any kind) due to the actions of an insane and irrational Indian leadership that chooses to start a nuclear war irrespective of Pakistani complicity in a WMD event in India?

If anything, after such a nuclear exchange, Pakistan's reasons for retaining a nuclear deterrent (while India is stripped of hers) become stronger given the conventional military disparity between the two countries - Pakistan will need nuclear weapons to ward off the same 'insane and irrational Indian leadership' from provoking a conventional military war on Pakistan down the road.

The rationality and sanity of the Indian establishment has already been tested in '99, '01 and '08. Notwithstanding GOP's complicity in the latter events. The most likely trigger for this hypothetical scenario will be the Pakistani state. Nukes are hard to come by unless sanctioned by those who have them.

lemontree
22 Jan 14,, 06:43
Re-read Col's replies. He said in case of nuclear exchange both countries will be stripped of their nuclear programs.

I seriously doubt that, the international community has been impotent against a nuclear armed state, whose intel chief funded the 9/11 team.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 14,, 06:47
I seriously doubt that, the international community has been impotent against a nuclear armed state, whose intel chief funded the 9/11 team.Good point, Captain. This is certainly not the world I remembered. We would not have thought twice to put a rogue state in their place. The Russians did it to the Chinese and Israelis and we did it to Iran and Lybia.

Now, we put up with the likes of North Korea.

Doktor
22 Jan 14,, 07:27
I seriously doubt that, the international community has been impotent against a nuclear armed state, whose intel chief funded the 9/11 team.

The interests and stakes will be different if a nuke goes loose. I hope.

sated buddha
22 Jan 14,, 07:47
I don't know if this has been posted on the forum before and discussed, but thought it relevant so sharing it here, as there are a lot of congruencies of thought from the Indian perspective vs a vis Pakistan, were it to cross the Rubicon (or Lakshman Rekha per our own mythology) -

Nuclear Targeting Philosophy for India (http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jun-200.html)

I have also taken the liberty to quote Kenneth Waltz as my now new signature line. Short and to the point.

A section I would also like to quote here, because (a) it comes from a military man; and (b) it goes into some specifics (versus the more generalized theory we have been discussing on this thread) -

"Brigadier Vijay K. Nair did pioneering work in analysing the nuclear threats faced by India and in recommending policy options and a force structure during the early 1990s when nuclear weapons were under wraps in both India and Pakistan and to even talk about them was considered an anathema by the Indian intelligentsia. Should deterrence fail, in a retaliatory strike, he recommends:20

Against Pakistan: The assured destruction of six to ten metropolitan centres, the destruction of a minimum of one corps sized offensive formation in its concentration area, the neutralisation of a large number of communications centres, industrial facilities, strategic bridges, military airfields, nuclear installations, hydroelectric and thermal power stations, railway centres and ports which would critically limit Pakistan's war potential.

Against China: The destruction of four to five of her metropolitan centres and nine to ten of her strategic industrial centres, thereby radically degrading China's economic growth.

In Brigadier Nair's view, "The core of India's deterrent strategy, to counter the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Pakistan, must rest on an assured ability to administer retribution of a magnitude that would demolish the national fabric of that country—the deterree (sic) should perceive a threat to its ability to continue to exist as a viable socio-economic system…If India can pose a credible threat of this nature, the political leadership in Pakistan will be suitably deterred." However, in the case of China he feels that the threat of destruction of four to five of her metropolitan centres and some strategic industries would be adequate to achieve deterrence. Despite several references to the complete destruction of Pakistan as a viable political entity, Brigadier Nair offers no justification for these varying perceptions of deterrence between Pakistan and China. (Brigadier Nair has listed 17 targets in Pakistan and only eight in China for a retaliatory Indian nuclear strike.)21

Perhaps the distinction is predicated on a deeply ingrained mindset that India has had enough trouble from Pakistan since its independence in 1947 and if Pakistan was to cross the ultimate Lakshman Rekha (famous in Indian mythology as a line the crossing of which would destroy the intruder through instantaneous combustion; the Indian equivalent of the Rubicon) and resort to the unthinkable, then India might as well ensure that Pakistan finally ceases to exist as a nation state. This view is fairly widespread among Indian analysts. In private conversations with the author, many of them stated that if Pakistan starts a nuclear war, India must ensure that that nation ceases to exist as a political entity; however, none of them was willing to go on record. The ability to cause unacceptable damage does not necessarily mean that a complete nation must be made to pay for the follies of its ruling elite. The modern day dictum that "one nuclear bomb on one city is one too many" is increasingly gaining currency. A credible threat of this nature posed by India would be adequate to deter India's adversaries from uncorking the nuclear genie."

Bottom line, as Lemontree also mentioned, Indians have a lot more confidence in Chinese sanity than Pakistan's. And every Indian, civilian or professional, on every available opportunity and forum, including this one, must make it amply clear to any and every Pakistani that they will die if they ever take this route. No negotiation, no delay, no chest thumping, no whining, no wringing of hands, no forensics, no dossiers. They will die.

Doktor
22 Jan 14,, 08:46
Bottom line, as Lemontree also mentioned, Indians have a lot more confidence in Chinese sanity than Pakistan's. And every Indian, civilian or professional, on every available opportunity and forum, including this one, must make it amply clear to any and every Pakistani that they will die if they ever take this route. No negotiation, no delay, no chest thumping, no whining, no wringing of hands, no forensics, no dossiers. They will die.

I have always viewed Indians as more pragmatic then what I read here.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 14,, 08:52
Perhaps the distinction is predicated on a deeply ingrained mindset that India has had enough trouble from Pakistan since its independence in 1947 and if Pakistan was to cross the ultimate Lakshman Rekha (famous in Indian mythology as a line the crossing of which would destroy the intruder through instantaneous combustion; the Indian equivalent of the Rubicon) and resort to the unthinkable, then India might as well ensure that Pakistan finally ceases to exist as a nation state. This view is fairly widespread among Indian analysts. In private conversations with the author, many of them stated that if Pakistan starts a nuclear war, India must ensure that that nation ceases to exist as a political entity; however, none of them was willing to go on record. The ability to cause unacceptable damage does not necessarily mean that a complete nation must be made to pay for the follies of its ruling elite. The modern day dictum that "one nuclear bomb on one city is one too many" is increasingly gaining currency. A credible threat of this nature posed by India would be adequate to deter India's adversaries from uncorking the nuclear genie."Within context of this thread, it should be noted that the Indian nuclear arsenal is more than adequate to achieve this POLITICAL state but it's a far cry from turning Pakistan into glass.

Also within context, it should be noted that Pakistan can acheive the same vis-a-vi India.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 14,, 08:53
I have always viewed Indians as more pragmatic then what I read here.No one here is a nuclear trigger puller.

sated buddha
22 Jan 14,, 09:32
Within context of this thread, it should be noted that the Indian nuclear arsenal is more than adequate to achieve this POLITICAL state but it's a far cry from turning Pakistan into glass.

Also within context, it should be noted that Pakistan can acheive the same vis-a-vi India.

Agreed with the first Colonel.

With regard to the second, if India with 200 (bigger more powerful) nukes cannot kill off a country 5 times smaller in land mass and 6 times smaller in population, then how can a country with 200 (smaller less powerful) nukes achieve even equivalent (contextually, against the relevant baselines) damage against the far bigger country, even sitting on their doorstep?

Their delivery mechanisms, even if all 200 of them make it through to intended detonation, do not cover more that 3/5th of the Indian land mass. And the Indian land mass, save for some exceptional areas, has pretty consistent population density. While our delivery mechanisms cover all of their land mass (and much more).

Lastly, if we cannot kill all 180 million of them, or not even close, I am sure that they would in their best case scenario not be able to kill an equal number of ours.

Even if each of us kill 180 million of the other, Pakistan ceases to exist as a people. While there are still more than a billion of us, who would quickly rebuild and repopulate.

I am not getting this "equal damage" scenario. Because even if the damage is equal, for them its civilizational termination, while for us its the equivalent of a very bad plague pandemic.

If I recall my Slade, population is the key element to nuclear aftermath recovery. And we have a lot more than they can kill.