A Race Pakistan Cannot Possibly Win

[randomradio]

And Mr. @randomradio was countered by a quotation from the exact site he himself quoted about the 7:10 rule. The site itself explains that the rule is a mere approximation. I can post the link if you like.

Rule of thumb literally means "mere approximation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory.

Two seconds of Google search would have helped you instead of making a joke of yourself.

 

[CriticalThought]

Rule of thumb literally means "mere approximation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory.

Two seconds of Google search would have helped you instead of making a joke of yourself.

The real joke that I pointed out is that you were creating justification for nuclear war based on this rule of thumb.

 

[randomradio]

The real joke that I pointed out is that you were creating justification for nuclear war based on this rule of thumb.

You have to come up with better excuses than that.

 

[CriticalThought]

You have to come up with better excuses than that.

It's not an excuse, come out of your denial mode. Answer this: on what basis are you saying that soldiers can safely enter a zone few days after less than 10 kiloton nuclear explosion has taken place.

 

[Dash]

Take a long walk off a short plank. What are you, their personal guard dog?

We will go off topic and incur the wrath of Mods further more and I dont have any plans to break the discipline. So I will only say this. You have no control or rights about how the outside world behaves the way it behaves, adjust or walk off a short plank is YOUR choice, not mine or theirs.

P.S :- and no one is dog here. I was honorably quoted by him and I wont tolerate any miss appropriation either naming him or me.

It's not an excuse, come out of your denial mode. Answer this: on what basis are you saying that soldiers can safely enter a zone few days after less than 10 kiloton nuclear explosion has taken place.

https://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html

From the source:-

Radioactive fallout
The explosions killed two plant workers, who were the first of several workers to die within hours of the accident. For the next several days, as emergency crews tried desperately to contain the fires and radiation leaks, the death toll climbed as plant workers succumbed to acute radiation sickness.

Who do you think they were?

 

[randomradio]

It's not an excuse, come out of your denial mode. Answer this: on what basis are you saying that soldiers can safely enter a zone few days after less than 10 kiloton nuclear explosion has taken place.

7:10 rule of thumb. It's hard science.

If a blast zone has 500rem/hour of radiation, in 7 hours it would drop down by 10 times to 50R/hr, then in 7x7 hours (49 hours), it would drop down to 5R/hr. Anything from 5-20R/hr won't kill you, with the exception of slight chromosomal damage and a potentially higher cancer rate, which is extremely small. You have a greater chance of getting hit by a bus than getting cancer at this rate.

http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-and-me/effects-of-radiation.html
We’ll get into some detail later, but for a baseline—

• 1 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects.
• 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect immediate observable health effects, although your chances of getting cancer might be very slightly increased.
• 100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.
• 1,000 rem in a short or long period of time will cause immediately observable health effects and is likely to cause death.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...AQ#v=onepage&q=7:10 radioactive decay&f=false

 

[CriticalThought]

https://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html

From the source:-


Who do you think they were?

You cannot use Chernobyl as an example of nuclear war, or soldiers participating in nuclear war:

1. Chernobyl was an uncontrolled explosion that caused nuclear material to spread. A nuclear warhead would concentrate the nuclear fallout by polluting the ground, water, and other material to which advancing soldiers would be exposed.

2. Residents around Chernobyl were evacuated quickly and effectively. Advancing soldiers would expose themselves and since this is war, they may have to hold position in the affected area for a long time.

3. Data gathering in Chernobyl was controlled by the Soviets hence we cannot draw an independent and meaningful conclusion.

7:10 rule of thumb. It's hard science.

If a blast zone has 500rem/hour of radiation, in 7 hours it would drop down by 10 times to 50R/hr, then in 7x7 hours (49 hours), it would drop down to 5R/hr. Anything from 5-20R/hr won't kill you, with the exception of slight chromosomal damage and a potentially higher cancer rate, which is extremely small. You have a greater chance of getting hit by a bus than getting cancer at this rate.

http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-and-me/effects-of-radiation.html
We’ll get into some detail later, but for a baseline—

• 1 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects.
• 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect immediate observable health effects, although your chances of getting cancer might be very slightly increased.
• 100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.
• 1,000 rem in a short or long period of time will cause immediately observable health effects and is likely to cause death.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=T208DwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-SA6-PA3&lpg=RA1-SA6-PA3&dq=7:10+radioactive+decay&source=bl&ots=0cmwxmRoiD&sig=CeqURDjPiqS7Wm89F2N6swW9Yeo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnluflmvLeAhVCQY8KHSELCq0Q6AEwD3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=7:10 radioactive decay&f=false

Your quotes about effects of various levels of radiation are hard science. But from your own original source in the other thread:

https://emilms.fema.gov/IS3/FEMA_IS/is03/REM0504060.htm

Like any rule of thumb, the answers obtained are only approximations. Also, the rule assumes that the time of detonation is known and that fallout from only one detonation is present in relatively significant quantities.

For accuracy and reliability, nothing can replace a direct instrument reading. However, depending on circumstances, it may become necessary to apply this general rule to predict when conditions may allow short trips outside a shelter.

Amongst many other factors, why are you discounting the possibility that we can attack with multiple nukes in close proximity? Furthermore, the citation above clearly shows that the rule is to be used in absolute necessity. You cannot plan an attack based on it because that would be akin to playing with the lives of your soldiers.

 

[Hellfire]

The next time you tag me when I was not responding to you and call me names, I will show you what I am made of. For a starter first apologize for the bolded parts and I will consider your sorry *** for a ride.

My Dear Sir.

There is a defense mechanism - transference. I would urge you to be emphatic and understand the personal trauma in the member's life. The member is exemplifying the typical signs, perhaps subconsciously narrating personal experiences?

What the contention of the (un)learned member of concentration of armour fails to account for, is the frontage of a typical infantry unit in example Rajasthan-Sindh sector. Where as a platoon of infantry typically will occupy a frontage of about 150 to 200 meters, with a classic 2 up 1 down platoon dispersion formation as an example, a company will occupy a frontage of almost 500 to 600 odd meters with a depth of somewhat similar approximation. The more pertinent part is, deployments will be at section/squad level or platoon level or maybe various combinations, as dunes will be occupied for the reason of being higher ground.

Of course, with the expectation of a preceding artillery barrage with close support right till advance elements reach the range for own weapons to engage, dispersion of even the defending forces is but a given. To add to it, the allocation of Light Anti Tank Weapons (at best able to disable a tank by blowing off a track) remains a norm, but the Heavy ATGMs, are few and dispersed for ATGM crew survivability. For precisely that reason, a tank in say 50 meter inter-se gap, is a laugh, as the probability of both being 'killed' increases. ATGM mobility is still an issue, it is not very easy to maneuver on feet and vehicle borne are way too easy to spot (especially in the area we are talking of if the vehicle does not get stuck in sand first )

Of course, these basics would be known to the member, had he spent even a day in foxhole instead of sitting on a computer console and becoming the armchair general, classically following the adage 'blind led by blind' by quoting our very own photoshop master for some or the other point. Had that been the case, he would not insist on making a complete mess of himself. But seeing as I do, his propensity to hurl expletives, lose control of his emotions and general disbalanced approach with a marked anti-social (read un-civil) demeanour, the only explanation that comes to fore is that he is highly traumatized and is merely in transference.

I would urge you to ignore. You will do a better job convincing the wall to move

Two seconds of Google search would have helped you instead of making a joke of yourself.

Can you deny him the right?

You have to come up with better excuses than that.

He is persistently trying. Wait for it ..... someday he may just reach

 

[randomradio]

Your quotes about effects of various levels of radiation are hard science. But from your own original source in the other thread:

https://emilms.fema.gov/IS3/FEMA_IS/is03/REM0504060.htm


Amongst many other factors, why are you discounting the possibility that we can attack with multiple nukes in close proximity? Furthermore, the citation above clearly shows that the rule is to be used in absolute necessity. You cannot plan an attack based on it because that would be akin to playing with the lives of your soldiers.

As I said you are not trying to dispute the 7:10 rule, but the concept of the rule of thumb itself, which is plainly stupid.

Rule of thumb is what you glean from practical experience. For example, it's easy enough to tell if one has fever or not by feeling the body temperature. If it's hotter than usual, that's your rule of thumb which suggests the subject has fever. To get an exact reading, you obviously need a thermometer. Now, your argument is, "No, I won't believe I have fever even if I'm burning up unless I get a thermometer to confirm it". That's how retarded your argument is.

The fact is radioactive materials decay. And the 7:10 rule says a blast zone with small nukes quickly dissipates in a few days.

As for using more nukes, sure you can use more nukes, but it doesn't change the 7:10 rule. All you do is reset the the start time again if you hit the same target. So you hit a target again after 24 hours, then instead of a 2-day wait, now it's a 3-day wait. Most effects are gone within 2 weeks anyway.

500R/hr - 50 - 5 - 0.5
Hour 1 - 7 hours later - 49 hours later - 343 hours later (2 weeks)

At 0.5R/hr, people can go back to business as usual. The army can move in on the 3rd day and clean up the place and hasten the decay process also. Wearing chemsuits, you can move in even sooner in fact. Weather can also help disperse fallout, whereas rain can also wash away fallout.

Even assuming a very large nuke is used that disperses 2000R/hr at hour 1, it will take 2 days to reach 20R/hr, followed by 2 weeks to achieve 2R/hr. Otoh, Pakistani nukes are all small nukes.

There is a lot of stuff to read about the effects of nukes even from a layman's PoV, so I'd suggest doing your own research. Here's one:
https://newatlas.com/survive-nuclear-bomb-shelter/31057/

As for what Hellfire's been trying to tell you, army formations are so well dispersed that you will need as many nukes as there are tanks in order to defeat a tank formation, considering the nuke is accurate enough to blow up near a tank. If the nuke's blast zone is even 100m too far, the tank will survive, whereas the tank is likely in motion and practically impossible to target in any case. That's why tactical nukes are an impractical solution. This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has not deployed tactical nukes anyway. Plus the fact that all you will be doing is putting your own population at risk by using nukes inside Pak territory, while also coming under direct threat of a strategic response immediately due to the deployment of SSBNs by India. Pakistani propaganda on tactical nukes is meant for idiots.

 

[thinkingcap81]

As for what Hellfire's been trying to tell you, army formations are so well dispersed that you will need as many nukes as there are tanks in order to defeat a tank formation, considering the nuke is accurate enough to blow up near a tank. If the nuke's blast zone is even 100m too far, the tank will survive, whereas the tank is likely in motion and practically impossible to target in any case. That's why tactical nukes are an impractical solution. This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has not deployed tactical nukes anyway. Plus the fact that all you will be doing is putting your own population at risk by using nukes inside Pak territory, while also coming under direct threat of a strategic response immediately due to the deployment of SSBNs by India. Pakistani propaganda on tactical nukes is meant for idiots.

Then why would Pakistan spend so much money on development of NASR and propaganda that a tactical nuke will stop India? If something was that silly, then they would be a laughing stock which has not happened. To me it is more plausible that NASR may be somewhat effective and the nuclear threshold of Pakistan is much higher than claimed.

 

[hussain0216]

using nukes inside Pak territory

Who said we would use them in our own territory

These are just assumptions based upon nothing

Once tactical nukes are deployed the entire defence system goes live,
Assuming the launch of a tactical weapon could possibly get a indian response, Our nuclear arsenal would be prepared to mass launch

Then why would Pakistan spend so much money on development of NASR and propaganda that a tactical nuke will stop India? If something was that silly, then they would be a laughing stock which has not happened. To me it is more plausible that NASR may be somewhat effective and the nuclear threshold of Pakistan is much higher than claimed.

Its blunted india

 

[Didact]

Then why would Pakistan spend so much money on development of NASR and propaganda that a tactical nuke will stop India? If something was that silly, then they would be a laughing stock which has not happened. To me it is more plausible that NASR may be somewhat effective and the nuclear threshold of Pakistan is much higher than claimed.

Last ditch defense mechanism, to try to create a bluff at a tactical level to cover up the now impossible gap in military capabilities between the two forces.

For it to wirk, it'll basically have to prove every single book and research paper on how nuclear weapons work wrong. Flat out wrong. Now be advised that those research papers came from the entities thatr came up with tactical nukes in the first place, and then realized that these aren't worth the marginal capability they offer.

 

[randomradio]

Then why would Pakistan spend so much money on development of NASR and propaganda that a tactical nuke will stop India? If something was that silly, then they would be a laughing stock which has not happened. To me it is more plausible that NASR may be somewhat effective and the nuclear threshold of Pakistan is much higher than claimed.

Nasr can be used with conventional weapons as well. We have something similar called Prithvi, and now will be replaced by the Prahaar.

Pakistan has not deployed tactical nukes anyway.

Who said we would use them in our own territory

These are just assumptions based upon nothing

The idea is to use them to defeat an attacking force, which will be in Pak's territory.

Assuming the launch of a tactical weapon could possibly get a indian response, Our nuclear arsenal would be prepared to mass launch

Nice. So you will allow us first strike.

 

[thinkingcap81]

Last ditch defense mechanism, to try to create a bluff at a tactical level to cover up the now impossible gap in military capabilities between the two forces.

For it to wirk, it'll basically have to prove every single book and research paper on how nuclear weapons work wrong. Flat out wrong. Now be advised that those research papers came from the entities thatr came up with tactical nukes in the first place, and then realized that these aren't worth the marginal capability they offer.

Could be that tactical nukes are not worth the hype, but they cannot be dismissed. If tactical nukes meant nothing, than our army chiefs would not say that we will fight under a nuclear umbrella. There would also not be statements like 'we will call their nuclear bluff'. Now calling their nuclear bluff could mean two things - one that it is useless or that Pak won't go nuclear so easily. I find the latter more feasible. Maybe @hellfire can comment on this.

Nasr can be used with conventional weapons as well.

I see. I haven't heard of it being made for conventional strike though.

 

[randomradio]

Could be that tactical nukes are not worth the hype, but they cannot be dismissed. If tactical nukes meant nothing, than our army chiefs would not say that we will fight under a nuclear umbrella. There would also not be statements like 'we will call their nuclear bluff'. Now calling their nuclear bluff could mean two things - one that it is useless or that Pak won't go nuclear so easily. I find the latter more feasible. Maybe @hellfire can comment on this.

Sure. It's a nuclear bluff because they don't plan on using tac nukes on us.

Hellfire has already posted before.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-race-pakistan-cannot-possibly-win.587769/page-3#post-10957155

Now do not ask how will they have enough warheads to place in both NASR and MIRVS to make an impact on the Pivot Corps which will be entering 48 hours prior to Strike Corps, let alone the Strike Corps and the Armoured Divisions.

So Pivot Corps move in within 2-3 days after declaration of war and Strike Corps within 5?

The last I heard was the SC moving in within a week.