What's new

Dear Keyboard commandos, here's one simple reason why nuclear war is a bad, bad thing

INDIAPOSITIVE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
-28
Country
India
Location
India
Keyboard commandos, here's one simple reason why nuclear war is a bad, bad thing
The Uri attacks have inspired some ballistic bombast.
ed6fa114-7410-45dc-8d1d-6c070eeb8acb.jpg

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan


A horrible attack on an Indian Army base in Uri, Kashmir leaving 18 dead and 19 injured.

Social media, with characteristic restraint, decided to demand retribution by asking for more to be killed. Many, many, many more.

Here, an instant classic example:

Are we Indians prepared for a nuclear war for finishing Pakistan as a country. Many of us may die in the process

— Sanjay Dixit (@Sanjay_Dixit) September 18, 2016
That's a former Indian Administrative Services officer who works with the Rajasthan government choosing to run a Twitter essentially calling for nuclear warfare. That might be worth underling and putting in bold:Nuclear warfare.

On TV last night, @sushantsareen literally said: '500 mn Indians might die, but remaining 500 mn will make a stronger India.' Yay patriotism

— Raghu Karnad (@rkarnad) September 19, 2016
This bellicosity was not restricted to social media – the television channels certainly got in on the game too – but it thrived online.

Social media by its nature can be both trivial-seeming and more serious-than-you-realise, so it's worth spelling out exactly what is being demanded here: The use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan, a move that would almost certainly result in the use of nuclear weapons against India and kill untold millions.

Let's spell that out even more. There are a lot of nuclear weapons on this planet. 15,375 according to the World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile. India and Pakistan have 250 between them. Even North Korea is believed to have a few. Despite all these weapons out there, using technology that was developed in the 1940s, nuclear bombs have only been used twice.

Two times. Once on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and again on the city of Nagasaki in August 1945. There's a reason the weapons haven't been used ever since, despite plenty of conflicts. There's a reason those two weapons effectively ended the second World War.

That reason is this (warning: graphic images):

Play
Atomic bomb victim, Hiroshima https://t.co/gAQOK1h1RLpic.twitter.com/jAFZ2WdWfC

— Old Pics Archive (@oldpicsarchive) August 24, 2016
More than 1,40,000 were killed in Hiroshima alone, in an attack that destroyed 70% of the city and left parts of it uninhabitable. The physical and psychological effects of the attack would persist for decades. A couple of days later America repeated its experiment, this time with plutonium, over Nagasaki. The results were equally disastrous.

Most of this should be obvious to anyone who has learnt about the horrors of the nuclear bombs, but as we get further away from those fateful days, it is possible that social media warriors have not fully understood exactly what they are advocating. This is destruction on an unimaginable scale.

India choosing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for Uri – which would already go against the country's stated doctrine of no-first use – would most likely lead to Pakistani retaliation that could leave millions dead, and cause environmental devastation that would "suddenly dwarf any other global problem."

All of this for, as Dixit, says "finishing Pakistan", an outcome that is by no means assured even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

None of this is to suggest that India cannot find a response that might be an appropriate way to retaliate after the Uri attacks. India has one of the world's largest militaries and has presumably spent much of its time acquiring equipment and expertise aimed specifically at neutralising Pakistan's capabilities. But to suggest that this retaliation has to be nuclear suggests, at best, a certain level of delusion about India's capabilities (or a level of nihilism that is only appropriate for anyone who spends too much time on social media).

Thankfully, for every bit of such Twitter terror there is a wisecracker who can add some levity in reply.

The world might see another nuclear holocaust due to:
a. Water wars
b. Oil wars
c. Religion wars
d. Twitter polls pic.twitter.com/Nz4GCxXj1K

— वरुण (@varungrover) September 19, 2016
This new Twitter poll system to decide on nuclear war is awesome because you can vote for the apocalypse from the comfort of your home.

— José Covaco (@HoeZaay) September 19, 2016
Bhakts voting furiously for nuclear annihilation. Voting from San Jose, well outside the blast zones. pic.twitter.com/7IqHhM2yAn

— The Last Caveman (@CarDroidusMax) September 18, 2016
The only thing keeping us safe from nuclear annihilation is that Mukesh Ambani knows that it's bad for his business.

— Alok ಪ್ರಸನ್ನ कुमार (@alokpi) September 18, 2016
I'm off to the neighbourhood cowshed to source cowdung to coat the exterior of my house with. It'll save me if we head for a nuclear war.

— kaveri (@ikaveri) September 19, 2016
I know people are worried about nuclear war & everything but I am just scared someone may just file a PIL on this in the Supreme Court.

— Apar Gupta (@aparatbar) September 19, 2016
Form a fidayeen like group of Gau-rakshaks, train them to attack Pakistani Army bases, and call them Non-state actors. No nuclear flashpoint

— Gabbbar (@GabbbarSingh) September 18, 2016



http://scroll.in/article/816904/key...ple-reason-why-nuclear-war-is-a-bad-bad-thing
 
.
First of all, i dont think these polls have any credibility. come on ew thousands votes from billion population. Anyways, if I am not wrong, what suresh dixit meant if we go for a tactical response (not nuclear) but eventually situation spiral out of control and leads to nuclear war, are we prepared for it?
 
.
'500 mn Indians might die, but remaining 500 mn will make a stronger India.' Yay patriotism
It is easier to call for nuclear war. What this FOOL does not know that the remaining 500 million will be suffering from varying amount radiation dose, leading a life more painful than the death and giving birth to crippled and mutated monsters for years to come...before they will be able to do anything useful for themselves. Ask Hiroshima victims.
 
.
Keyboard commandos, here's one simple reason why nuclear war is a bad, bad thing
The Uri attacks have inspired some ballistic bombast.
ed6fa114-7410-45dc-8d1d-6c070eeb8acb.jpg

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan

A horrible attack on an Indian Army base in Uri, Kashmir leaving 18 dead and 19 injured.

Social media, with characteristic restraint, decided to demand retribution by asking for more to be killed. Many, many, many more.

Here, an instant classic example:

Are we Indians prepared for a nuclear war for finishing Pakistan as a country. Many of us may die in the process

— Sanjay Dixit (@Sanjay_Dixit) September 18, 2016
That's a former Indian Administrative Services officer who works with the Rajasthan government choosing to run a Twitter essentially calling for nuclear warfare. That might be worth underling and putting in bold:Nuclear warfare.

On TV last night, @sushantsareen literally said: '500 mn Indians might die, but remaining 500 mn will make a stronger India.' Yay patriotism

— Raghu Karnad (@rkarnad) September 19, 2016
This bellicosity was not restricted to social media – the television channels certainly got in on the game too – but it thrived online.

Social media by its nature can be both trivial-seeming and more serious-than-you-realise, so it's worth spelling out exactly what is being demanded here: The use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan, a move that would almost certainly result in the use of nuclear weapons against India and kill untold millions.

Let's spell that out even more. There are a lot of nuclear weapons on this planet. 15,375 according to the World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile. India and Pakistan have 250 between them. Even North Korea is believed to have a few. Despite all these weapons out there, using technology that was developed in the 1940s, nuclear bombs have only been used twice.

Two times. Once on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and again on the city of Nagasaki in August 1945. There's a reason the weapons haven't been used ever since, despite plenty of conflicts. There's a reason those two weapons effectively ended the second World War.

That reason is this (warning: graphic images):

Play
Atomic bomb victim, Hiroshima https://t.co/gAQOK1h1RLpic.twitter.com/jAFZ2WdWfC

— Old Pics Archive (@oldpicsarchive) August 24, 2016
More than 1,40,000 were killed in Hiroshima alone, in an attack that destroyed 70% of the city and left parts of it uninhabitable. The physical and psychological effects of the attack would persist for decades. A couple of days later America repeated its experiment, this time with plutonium, over Nagasaki. The results were equally disastrous.

Most of this should be obvious to anyone who has learnt about the horrors of the nuclear bombs, but as we get further away from those fateful days, it is possible that social media warriors have not fully understood exactly what they are advocating. This is destruction on an unimaginable scale.

India choosing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for Uri – which would already go against the country's stated doctrine of no-first use – would most likely lead to Pakistani retaliation that could leave millions dead, and cause environmental devastation that would "suddenly dwarf any other global problem."

All of this for, as Dixit, says "finishing Pakistan", an outcome that is by no means assured even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

None of this is to suggest that India cannot find a response that might be an appropriate way to retaliate after the Uri attacks. India has one of the world's largest militaries and has presumably spent much of its time acquiring equipment and expertise aimed specifically at neutralising Pakistan's capabilities. But to suggest that this retaliation has to be nuclear suggests, at best, a certain level of delusion about India's capabilities (or a level of nihilism that is only appropriate for anyone who spends too much time on social media).

Thankfully, for every bit of such Twitter terror there is a wisecracker who can add some levity in reply.

The world might see another nuclear holocaust due to:
a. Water wars
b. Oil wars
c. Religion wars
d. Twitter polls pic.twitter.com/Nz4GCxXj1K

— वरुण (@varungrover) September 19, 2016
This new Twitter poll system to decide on nuclear war is awesome because you can vote for the apocalypse from the comfort of your home.

— José Covaco (@HoeZaay) September 19, 2016
Bhakts voting furiously for nuclear annihilation. Voting from San Jose, well outside the blast zones. pic.twitter.com/7IqHhM2yAn

— The Last Caveman (@CarDroidusMax) September 18, 2016
The only thing keeping us safe from nuclear annihilation is that Mukesh Ambani knows that it's bad for his business.

— Alok ಪ್ರಸನ್ನ कुमार (@alokpi) September 18, 2016
I'm off to the neighbourhood cowshed to source cowdung to coat the exterior of my house with. It'll save me if we head for a nuclear war.

— kaveri (@ikaveri) September 19, 2016
I know people are worried about nuclear war & everything but I am just scared someone may just file a PIL on this in the Supreme Court.

— Apar Gupta (@aparatbar) September 19, 2016
Form a fidayeen like group of Gau-rakshaks, train them to attack Pakistani Army bases, and call them Non-state actors. No nuclear flashpoint

— Gabbbar (@GabbbarSingh) September 18, 2016



http://scroll.in/article/816904/key...ple-reason-why-nuclear-war-is-a-bad-bad-thing
I think that they live in the east India, because the east and south east Indian are thinking that they are safe and no Pakistani missile can hit them, they live in the heaven of their thoughts, not in the real life.
 
.
I think that they live in the east India, because the east and south east Indian are thinking that they are safe and no Pakistani missile can hit them, they live in the heaven of their thoughts, not in the real life.
Actually if they use their minds, east of India will be the best for nuclear strike from Pakistan's point of view as it has a longer distance from Pakistan and radiation fall out will be minimal for Pakistan. Also most of Indian nuclear installations are in the east like Tarrapore so that makes an attractive target.
 
.
Actually if they use their minds, east of India will be the best for nuclear strike from Pakistan's point of view as it has a longer distance from Pakistan and radiation fall out will be minimal for Pakistan. Also most of Indian nuclear installations are in the east like Tarrapore so that makes an attractive target.
So you think you can hit East India with a nuclear strike and have minimal radiation fall out for Pakistan. But did you forget the fact that India will hit back on the same scale with nuclear strikes once they get to know a nuke has been launched at them. Both countries should avoid going nuclear even if a conventional war breaks out and my guess is India wouldn't start a conventional war not because it doesn't have the balls but that would have a huge effect on it's economy which is improving rapidly only in the recent days.
 
Last edited:
.
It is easier to call for nuclear war. What this FOOL does not know that the remaining 500 million will be suffering from varying amount radiation dose, leading a life more painful than the death and giving birth to crippled and mutated monsters for years to come...before they will be able to do anything useful for themselves. Ask Hiroshima victims.
Before calling him fool, count the number of times your fellow country men here calls for nuclear war every day in every thread.....Dont preach if you cannot practice...
 
. .
Keyboard warriors are fanatic or not but this nuclear coercion can not prevent a response, this coercion works when one is nuclear armed and other is not so its going to cut both ways. War in general is bad thing to happen for humanity
 
. .
india should keep in mind that they cant do any type of military stupidity. that means no surgical strikes. no para dropping of terrorists inside pakistan. no escalation on LOC . no full scale war. pakistan will definitely respond and then situation can go out of control. india has done this drama to save her a*s in the UNGA as they are simply the aggressors in kashmir. modi will complain as he is a "shakayti tattoo" . political isolation of pak is not possible . forget baluchistan . your assets in baluchistan are now rotting in our jails or surrendering to pak authorities.
 
.
On TV last night, @sushantsareen literally said: '500 mn Indians might die, but remaining 500 mn will make a stronger India.' Yay patriotism
I agree that there are alot of keyboard warriors here, you can call that being patriotic, but in my opinion its childish. Especially this guy who says even if 500 million die, that has got to be one of the most irresponsible statement ever, those 500mn are people not ants.

This is 2016 but it feels like we are still living in the 19th century, and this is not just limited to Pakistan and India. Everywhere in the world all i see is hatred, misery, wars and destruction. For how long are we going to continue like this.

People start thinking with your brain and not just your heart
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom