F - 16s needed for counter- terror Ops - Pak tells US

[Sinnerman108]

You could launch all your nukes on India and it won't change anything. You could destroy Delhi and Mumbai and it won't change anything.

The economy will take a battering, India will lose a significant chunk of its economy temporarily. But cities are cheap in terms of construction. The nuked areas will be cleaned, construction will resume and the economy will take its course. During WW2, a large number of cities were razed and were rebuilt. India is richer than the WW2 economies today.

People have been taken over completely by this MAD propaganda. Even if there is a nuclear war between Russia and the US tomorrow, both countries will come out of it and rebuild. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is incomparable.

At least India has or will have deployed BMD, there is a chance some or a lot of the nukes will fail to hit their targets. On the other hand, what would Pakistan do? India can just as easily destroy Karachi and Lahore. India can void the Indus Water Treaty and start building dams on the Indus. If the objective is to kill more people, then India can destroy the large dams in the North and cut off international aid. This can all be followed up by an invasion if necessary.

India has $400B in forex. Rebuilding Delhi and Mumbai can be done inside $50-100B. Not counting the private sector which will be keen on absorbing land in the areas. Does Pakistan have the ability to rebuild Karachi and Lahore?

Bang on target.

Nukes have become a boogyman and people simply overstate their effectiveness by over a factor of 1000.

These are effect of largest Pakistani Nukes in Airburst mode.

1. Fireball Radius = 280m = 0.25 Sq Km area.
2. Radiation Radius (500 rem) = 1.16 Km= 4.25 Sq Km.
3. Air Blast Radius (5 psi = Residential Buildings/Buildings not made of Concrete; collapse)= 2.5 Km = 19.6 Sq Km
4. Thermal radiation (Cause third degree burn to those who are directly exposed)= 3.05 sq Km = 29.3 Sq Km.
5. Fallout = 0.

In Groundburst mode:

1. Fireball Radius = 360m = 0.41 Sq Km area.
2. Radiation Radius (500 rem) = 0.77 Km= 1,88 Sq Km.
3. Air Blast Radius (5 psi = Residential Buildings/Buildings not made of Concrete; collapse)= 1.61 Km = 8.13 Sq Km
4. Thermal radiation (Cause third degree burn to those who are directly exposed)= 2.74 sq Km = 23.6 Sq Km.
5. Fallout = 0.


This is effect of biggest Pakistani Nuke. Of these no3 and no4 does not apply in case of war (no one be camping on grounds of India gate during war). Even during sneak attack, a Nuke on Rashtrapati Bhavan

Effect of Indian Nukes are little larger than Pakistani, but smaller still.


Even to significantly damage a city like Delhi Mumbai or Karachi , opponent would need 20 Nukes each. An Indian strike force of 300 Su30 MKI (or Rafael or Jaguars) loaded by mix of Thermobaric and Bunker buster bombs would cause much more damage to Karachi than an Indian nuke, even though their explosive payload is less than 1000 times of a Nuke. Nuke concentrate its damage in just a Km of its detonation point, but a bomber raid would spread out damage, evenly.

Actually India could destroy Pakistan more efficiently by tunneling through Pir Panjal range and diverting whole Indus system into Rajasthan.

Where are you two bright young gents from ?
which area / state ?

 

[randomradio]

Where are you two bright young gents from ?
which area / state ?

My location doesn't change ground realities between India and Pakistan when things go nuclear.

India's strategic depth is just one of the many advantages.

 

[Sinnerman108]

My location doesn't change ground realities between India and Pakistan when things go nuclear.

India's strategic depth is just one of the many advantages.

why are you hesitant; ?

 

[Immortan.Joe]

Where are you two bright young gents from ?
which area / state ?

New Delhi.

why are you hesitant; ?

Because getting Nuked do cost money, a lot of it.So governments do cost-benefit analysis and decide that benefits of nuking and getting nuked is not worth it.

The fact that effects of getting nuked (especially by size of bombs that both India and Pakistan have) would be 1000 times less worse than apocalyptic scenario some people paint is a different point of contention.

If India really wants to destroy Pakistan, diverting Indus river system would be more effective than even nuking Pakistan with 200 Nukes (assuming India does not have multi megaton bombs). Even a bombing raid with Su-30s (assuming all 300 of them are intact at that point of war) or Rafael in future would cause more damage to a city like Karachi than a Hiroshima type bomb.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

Even the effects of radiation is exaggerated. You can go close to sites with high radiation after a few days, pick up a banana, peel it and eat it. No harm.

That is what I too posted. In order to have a fallout in Airburst, you need a minimum of 15 megaton Nuke; and to cause a fallout in groundburst mode, you need a 4 Megaton nuke.

For the kind of bombs that India and Pakistan have, you could visit center of detonation after a minutes of detonation, if other circumstances do not prevent it.

The Bangqiao dam in China carries 500M cubic metres of water. It burst and killed more than 200,000 people.

The Mangla and Tarbela dams otoh have 20B cubic meters of water. How much damage do you think that will cause?

And the Bangqiao dam was not struck by airstrikes, it weakened gradually due to rain. So imagine what kind of damage air strikes will do? There is a reason why the UN forbids attacking dams. The water damage and soil erosion will be permanent. It will make the past floods look like streams. And this does not even account for India releasing water from dams in the North.

Not to mention, the entire Pakistani electricity grid is at India's mercy. And the system doesn't even have enough redundancy.

The Pakistanis have so much to lose in a nuclear war that it's not even funny, even without India having to use nuclear weapons. The Indian govt can see through their bluff.

For busting dam, I think a nuke or a very big conventional bomb would be needed.

And actually, no treaty forbids destruction of dam, similar to how no treaty forbids diversion of rivers. It is covered under general clause of Geneva conventions which forbid attack on public infrastructure, unless it could be proven that they were being used for military purpose. If India could show cause that Tarbels is being used ofr military purpose, it could legally destroy it.

 

[randomradio]

And actually, no treaty forbids destruction of dam, similar to how no treaty forbids diversion of rivers. It is covered under general clause of Geneva conventions which forbid attack on public infrastructure, unless it could be proven that they were being used for military purpose. If India could show cause that Tarbels is being used ofr military purpose, it could legally destroy it.

There is no legal directive stopping us if the war goes nuclear. War will go nuclear only if Pak attacks us with nukes, so the blame will fall on them.

The Pakistanis don't realize that they have nothing to gain from a nuclear war with India. And the economic effect on India will be marginal in the long run.

 

[Shariq786]

Hi,

Youngman---with nuclear weapons it does not work like that----. The use of their force has a multiplier effect that is only unique to the nuc weapons----.

As the number of strikes keep increasing---the multiplier effect would go on increasing---.

Suppose pakistan lobbed 5 weapons on india---the effec would be 100 supposedly---but if 10 are launched the effect could be 1000---and if 15 are launched---the effect could be 2500---5000.

What is happening is that as the numbers of strikes increase---the panic in the community increase enmasse----the chaos takes a destruction of its own kind---and that is what is one of the biggest fear factors---the second fear factor that an average public does not know----is DIARHEA caused by radiation when it gets to you---.

So---the effects of nuc strike do not stop after the explosion of the bomb---they are just begining----.

In my numbers----10-15 is the magic number of successful strikes on india to to bring it crushing down to the ground----for pakistan 5 would be enough---.

sir i take you as my teacher and i respect you the most in this forum although i did not mean anything serious by my comment above thats why i said "in Indian language" and i understand and realize each and everything you stated above but as some of our INDIAN users its hard to explain it to them even if they think its right they would go ahead and say NO INDIA IS A SUPER DUPER POWER and can with stand anything so in order to counter those noobish comments i go their way and reply in their own language

 

[SQ8]

Actually George HW Bush (senior) never wanted to invade Iraq. He wrote that toppling Saddam Hussein would have created a power vacuum in the ME and lead to turmoil (he was right). He specifically has harsh words for Cheney who he termed "an iron *** who wanted to build his own empire" and Rumsfeld who he called " an arrogant fellow who did not serve the president well". Bush Sr was never for the war in Iraq but kept quiet about his views until recently. Read his book and you will see he was very much a different cut than his foolish son.

That might be true, but at the end it is his decision that control all regardless of what his cabinet says. Cheney might still be an ***, but he still ended up with the vice presidency for his son. So that realization may have been pretty late.

 

[thrilainmanila]

i don't know how national security works, but sometimes, when an friend is bullshitting you, and selling a shotgun and UZIs to your enemy, but has a difficult time providing a revolver, its better to find a new friend.

 

[MastanKhan]

Actually George HW Bush (senior) never wanted to invade Iraq. He wrote that toppling Saddam Hussein would have created a power vacuum in the ME and lead to turmoil (he was right). He specifically has harsh words for Cheney who he termed "an iron *** who wanted to build his own empire" and Rumsfeld who he called " an arrogant fellow who did not serve the president well". Bush Sr was never for the war in Iraq but kept quiet about his views until recently. Read his book and you will see he was very much a different cut than his foolish son.

Hi,

If the U S had taken ownership of iraq after invasion and enforced the rule of law and order---things would have been different---.

But the U S intentionally let chaos and anarchy spread thru the country---allowed loot and plunder while the american soldiers were shown to be on duty and people looting and plundering the wealth of the nation.

Allowing the iraqi army to walk home without any food and money and just releasing them----was THE ICON OF AMERICAN STUPIDITY----so much so that even the Israelis were surprised.

 

[iPhone]

Hi,

If the U S had taken ownership of iraq after invasion and enforced the rule of law and order---things would have been different---.

But the U S intentionally let chaos and anarchy spread thru the country---allowed loot and plunder while the american soldiers were shown to be on duty and people looting and plundering the wealth of the nation.

Allowing the iraqi army to walk home without any food and money and just releasing them----was THE ICON OF AMERICAN STUPIDITY----so much so that even the Israelis were surprised.

Sir, do you think the destruction of Iraq was due to american stupidity, like you stated, or was it planned ahead of time before the invasion and the destruction was one the main objectives?

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir, do you think the destruction of Iraq was due to american stupidity, like you stated, or was it planned ahead of time before the invasion and the destruction was one the main objectives?

Hi,

The destruction was out of sheer stupidity---ignorance---incompetence---you name it.

" never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity ".