What's new

Computer Models Show What Would After A Nuclear War (Ind-Pak)

If you use my beloved ancestral homeland as some sort of a bargaining chip in some stratagem of yours - Tou mujhe seh burraa koi nahin ! :angry:

Saath...saaath Bhabi seh keh kar maaar bhi parvaooon gaa ! :mad:

No Bhabhi yet, Bhatta.. but a Bhattan who is .. umm.. Manzoor-e-nazar on temporary basis.
 
.
No Bhabhi yet, Bhatta.. but a Bhattan who is .. umm.. Manzoor-e-nazar on temporary basis.

Its Butt.....BUTT not Bhatta ! :pissed:

Koi nahin I'm sure the temporary basis would become permanent 'cause after all you want to intermingle with us - Butt Qaum - to upgrade your status & blood-lines by instiling our superior genes into the gene-pool ! :smokin:
 
.
Its Butt.....BUTT not Bhatta ! :pissed:

Koi nahin I'm sure the temporary basis would become permanent 'cause after all you want to intermingle with us - Butt Qaum - to upgrade your status & blood-lines by instiling our superior genes into the gene-pool ! :smokin:

Oh I do want to intermingle .. for a while anyway. Running a business is really stressful and I need to let out some steam.:devil:
 
.
Nuke each other for Kashmir.......lets do it......
 
.
Armstrong said:
BS....BS & some more BS ! :crazy:
Prove me wrong hon!
Why is it that TNW is so important to Pak and not to India???
With kargil India has already shown that there still space for conventional war.
Though PA believes that the use of TNW would bring about psychological shift in hostilities as to stun India into a halt. Going by the nature of Indian polity and the ‘softness of the state’ would make India choose war-termination over escalation. So Pak believes that India would be deterred from using its superior military capability since it would not have the will or the motivation to act. In PA's perception the TNW is a deterrent at best and a war termination weapon at worst.
It is a nuclear blackmail!!
 
.
Oye ruko , Pehle mujhe south Asia se jane do .. bad mai jo kerna hai karo ..
abhi tu shaadi bhi nai hue ,, aur sab Nuclear ke baat karte ho :hitwall::pissed:
 
.
Computer Models Show What Exactly Would Happen To Earth After A Nuclear War- (Ind-Pak war)
Cheery happy times

By
Francie Die


teapotwasp.jpg

Wasp Prime Test From Operation Teapot

Wikimedia Commons
You've seen what a nuclear winter looks like, as imagined by filmmakers and novelists. Now you can take a look at what scientists have to say. In a new study, a team of four U.S. atmospheric and environmental scientists modeled what would happen after a "limited, regional nuclear war." To inexpert ears, the consequences sound pretty subtle—two or three degrees of global cooling, a nine percent reduction in yearly rainfall. Still, such changes could be enough to trigger crop failures and famines. After all, these would be cooler temperatures than the Earth has seen in 1,000 years.

Let's take a detailed look at some of these super-fun conclusions, shall we?

First, what happened?
The team imagines 100 nuclear warheads, each about the size of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, detonate over the Indian subcontinent. The team members are imagining an India-Pakistan nuclear war. It seems unfair to single out these nations, but I guess they're the poster children because they have relatively small nuclear stockpiles compared to countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. The idea is, If these lightweights can do this to Earth, imagine what the bigwigs can do.

After the Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange
  • Five megatons of black carbon enter the atmosphere immediately. Black carbon comes from burned stuff and it absorbs heat from the sun before it can reach the Earth. Some black carbon does eventually falls back to Earth in rain.

  • After one year, the average surface temperature of the Earth falls by 1.1 kelvin, or about two degrees Fahrenheit. After five years, the Earth is, on average, three degrees colder than it used to be. Twenty yooears on, our home planet warms again to about one degree cooler than the average before the nuclear war.

  • Earth's falling temperatures reduces the amount of rain the planet receives. Year five after the war, Earth will have 9 percent less rain than usual. Year 26 after the war, Earth gets 4.5 percent less rain than before the war.

  • In years 2-6 after the war, the frost-free growing season for crops is shortened by 10 to 40 days, depending on the region.

  • Chemical reactions in the atmosphere eat away Earth's ozone layer, which protects Earth's inhabitants from ultraviolet radiation. In the five years after the war, the ozone is 20 to 25 percent thinner, on average. Ten years on, the ozone layer has recovered so that it's now 8 percent thinner.

  • The decreased UV protection may lead to more sunburns and skin cancers in people, as well as reduced plant growth anddestabilized DNA in crops such as corn.

  • In a separate study, published in 2013, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War estimated 2 billion people would starve in the wake of a 100-A-bomb war.
Okay, I know I've just made your day with this list. Still, there's a point to all this doom and gloom, the modelers write in their paper. The scientists want to motivate countries to destroy the estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons they still hold.

Will this work? Well, scientists and artists have been imagining the dire consequences of an atom-bomb war for decades. The very idea of a "nuclear winter" entered the popular imagination in 1983, when a study, authored by a team including Carl Sagan, first proposed that soot from fires after a nuclear war would block sunlight from reaching Earth.

Twenty-five years later, environmental scientists began using modern climate models to figure out what might happen after a nuclear war. Yep, these are the same models that scientists use to predict the effects of human-driven global warming. This new paper combined a number of those state-of-the-art models. If you check out the paper, published in the journal Earth's Future, you can see how these conclusions compare to previous climate-model-based calculations. Different modeling efforts have come up with slightly different years for when the Earth would be coldest after a nuclear war, for example, but they generally agree that the effects would be, well, severe and long-term.

Interesting article. But I have little faith in such simulations because a number of tangible parameters can be favourably altered to influence the outcome, while the intangibles, some of which may be very decisive, cannot be factored in.:)
 
.
Interesting article. But I have little faith in such simulations because a number of tangible parameters can be favourably altered to influence the outcome, while the intangibles, some of which may be very decisive, cannot be factored in.:)
True!!!

But you do understand that this article is just another way of averting a possible nuclear war in the region. :)
 
.
wahooo MAZA ajyega.. I want seriously N-War with India...

One no Hindu state left in the world after all India is the only Hinduism country in the world :P

Secondly Moon soon may N-War honi chahye takay jaldi jaldi barish hoo aur mosam thanda hojaye... :P

yapa yapa yooooooooooooooo!!!! I love Indo-Pak Nuclear War....
 
.
Not for Kashmir? If not against India, then who? The TTP? China? Iran? Israel? The US of A? Or probably the Martians? :lol:

India perhaps, but Kashmir is not the primary focus. And learn to be serious when needed, otherwise your useless butt has no place here.
 
.
True!!!

But you do understand that this article is just another way of averting a possible nuclear war in the region. :)

Which is a very commendable thing.

There is a line of thought in the region (some of which gets even displayed here on PDF) that Nukes are weapons just like any other. They are not. Just as no Nuclear War is a "Winnable War".
Nukes are a weapon of last resort, "Hara-Kiri" weapons in a sense; but there is'nt even any sense of Honor associated with them unlike the act of "Seppuku" or "Hara-Kiri".
Unfortunately there is even a section of Strategic Thinkers in the Region who think that Nukes are some kind of Strategic "Magic Wand" and then have even degraded their thinking to embrace "Tactical Nukes" as part of their Strategic Arsenal! LOLLL.
 
.
Hmmn...that doesn't sound so bad ! :unsure:

It is enough bad.

She argues that the Pakistan army’s concerns about India “are not purely or even mostly security driven”. It is about ideology. The army sees itself protecting not merely the territorial borders of Pakistan but its “ideological frontiers”. Rawalpindi sees Pakistan locked in a civilisational conflict with India. Fair concludes that “for the army, resisting India’s rise is a necessary condition for the survival of Islamic Pakistan”.

Fair also offers a very important insight on the army’s rather unconventional views about victory and defeat in its unending struggle against India. She suggests that the Pakistan army does not view its inability to win multiple wars against India as “losing”. For Rawalpindi, sustaining the ability to challenge Delhi, and to challenge India’s rise, is in itself the prize. If accepting the territorial status quo is a defeat for the Pakistan army, it feels duty bound to revise it. In its revisionist quest, Fair suggests, the Pakistan army will continue to take significant risks, rather than do nothing.

Powerful and Insecure

Interesting article.
 
.
Prove me wrong hon!
Why is it that TNW is so important to Pak and not to India???
With kargil India has already shown that there still space for conventional war.
Though PA believes that the use of TNW would bring about psychological shift in hostilities as to stun India into a halt. Going by the nature of Indian polity and the ‘softness of the state’ would make India choose war-termination over escalation. So Pak believes that India would be deterred from using its superior military capability since it would not have the will or the motivation to act. In PA's perception the TNW is a deterrent at best and a war termination weapon at worst.
It is a nuclear blackmail!!

When did you write this ? I never got an Alert ! :o:

TNW - nahhh...mazaaa nahin ayaaa, Tactical Nukes key baaat hiii kuch aur haiii ! :smokin:

The way I understand....Tactical Nukes are to stop your rampaging armies in case Pakistan suffers a Conventional defeat of the proportion that threatens to translate into dismemberment of Pakistan or some similar Dooms Day scenario - They are not for the local Commander to think 'Hey....maybe I'd conserve on the fuel & keep my tanks here & instead lob a nuke at India's advancing Armored Divisions' ! :unsure:

But why would this come to pass ?

India knows it as well as anyone that even with the Conventional disparity Pakistan is no push-over & the Conventional disparity between India & Pakistan are not of the nature the likes of which existed between say Iraq & America or Russia & Georgia - Nothing of the sort !

Hence why even during the 2000-2001 Stand-Off that went on for months - Nothing happened !

So far as the 'nuclear blackmail' part is concerned - Its a deterrent like every other nuclear device & something to be used in case we decide to do so - What do you think your Nuclear Submarines are for ?

Deterrent or Blackmail ?
 
.
True!!!

But you do understand that this article is just another way of averting a possible nuclear war in the region. :)

But given that it isn't really all that alarmist and apocalyptic in it's assessment, I'm inclined to believe it might just end up emboldening some hothead war-hawks on either side to advocate nuclear war.:flood:
 
.
This is all rubbish...Nuclear weapons in South Asia are in very small amount comparatively to nations like Russia, USA and China who have huge stockpiles of deployed nuclear weapons. First ask them to make their stockpiles zero then ask South Asian states. Presence of nuclear weapons have given deterrence capability to both India and Pakistan and to stop them from going into full fledged war.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom