Spitfighter
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,443
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Well the more nukes are not for Pakistan.
To completely destroy Pakistan, 10-20 are more then enough, the rest are for China or may be as India wants to become a super power, it may face more enemies at that stage or just for safe side, it wants to increase its nuke numbers.
Not entirely true, it would take something like 4-5 nukes (unsure of the yield, but I think its about 50-75kt each) to completely destroy a city the size of Bombay.
Here's a really old article, you've probably seen it before. Notice that even with 24 (12 each) ground bursts ~ 30 million (15 mil each) people are killed.
NRDC: The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan
A few changes to the article though, since its old. India apparently has scalable thermonuclear warheads ranging from 45-200kt. Pakistan has fission based warheads at about ~50 kt. Even at these yields, I doubt we would wipe each other out because we would...
a) Initially use tactical nukes against each others military spearheads. India would push (attempt) in Rajasthan (Sindh) and Kashmir. We'd probably stay put in Punjab and try to blunt Pakistan's counter assault. The barren desert of Sindh/Rajasthan would be the ideal target for a first strike and will clearly be first on the list.But if that doesn't work...
b) Pakistan would target major Indian cities ('A country') next if it fails to blunt the offensive and is on the verge of defeat (severed in half, unlikely India would go this far). India would reciprocate accordingly.
Its hard to say how intense the Pakistani first strike would be, because in this case they would get as good as the give. A few nuclear strikes would/should stop the offensives as either side would realize that there's more where that came from. Although it is hard to see how chain of command would be preserved in such a scenario. An all out attack however would mean absolute annihilation (nuclear strike followed by an invasion), so I doubt Pakistan would launch all its warheads. A limited nuclear strike would put an end to the hostilities IMO.
c) India and Pakistan are semi industrialized countries, i.e most of our people live in rural areas ('B country'). These places have the least strategic value and will therefore be the last places to get hit, if at all. Military targets and urban areas would the worst affected.
Thus under any circumstance, a majority of our populations would survive. Pakistan would lose a greater percentage of its population, though the number of casualties would be about the same on both sides.
I'm fairly confident that we will make it to step 'a' and hit the brakes, thus becoming the 2nd and 3rd country to use nuclear weapons, but since the damage would be confined almost entirely to military targets both countries would live to fight another day.
Make no mistake, Kashmir has dragged on for 60 years and its not going to get solved anytime soon, it would probably take a cataclysmic event (step 'a' minimum) to force both sides to compromise and resolve their differences. Think about it, neither side changed positions even after Kargil so conventional war and the threat of nuclear weapons alone will not suffice.