What is the use of retaining Pakistani nukes?

[kaal2009]

A headline says: "Pak will retain nukes at any cost: PM".

What is the use of retaining nukes if you don't use them against the aggressor who is carrying out missile attacks from drones on your territory several times a month? To see how to use your nukes against the United States, see my blog.

Do you have any idea what the United States will do if you carried out even one drone attack on its territory?

Similarly, I have said to India's missile men (see my blog below): "It is no use developing bigger and better missiles if you don't use what you have to destroy India's enemies IN A TIMELY FASHION, now that the elections -- decided by the C.I.A. by microwaves from satellites -- are over. India is being hijacked by India's enemies; are India's missile men going to continue to "get paid, make babies, chase girls" or are they going to obey India's sovereign and destroy India's enemies with the weapons they already have? I am looking for some trace, some spark of life in India's missile men that will allow India to survive."

What do I mean by 'a trace, a spark of life'? This is what I wrote about that: "The population of Delhi/New Delhi which, by the hundreds of thousands, stood and watched silently India’s emperor, after surrendering his sword, arrested and led away by a lone Englishman with “fifty black sowars” -- the Englishman sent the Indian emperor’s jewel-encrusted sword to the British monarch -- though, as the Englishman wrote home to England, anyone of them -- his fifty black sowars -- could have brought him down with a single shot." Neither the population of Delhi in 1858 nor those fifty black sowars had a trace, a spark of life.

In a letter dated June 27, 2004 to the press, I wrote “Technology, however, is necessary but not sufficient for independence; if the perceived willingness -- perceived by yourself and others -- to use your arms is zero, their value -- deterrent and other -- is zero. The United States has a decisive advantage -- ideological, economic and military -- over the rest of the world because of its demonstrated willingness to use its nuclear arms.” This applies as much to the use of nuclear arms within the country against agents of a foreign power -- the nuclear destruction of New Delhi/ Delhi will be the first such use of nuclear arms -- as outside the country. Also, as I have repeatedly emphasised, nuclear arms against the United States are needed not to “deter” it but to actually destroy it because the United States, by its nature, will be constantly striving for nuclear supremacy, that is, to overcome deterrence. In other words, the United States cannot be deterred, only destroyed. For this India needs nuclear supremacy over the United States and a minimum of ten thousand nuclear warheads -- an objective that is well within India’s reach; attaining this objective requires the nuclear destruction of New Delhi/ Delhi first."

See also: http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...pons-increases-your-power-millions-times.html

 

[fhassan]

Salaam

with all due respect, only a blood thirsty nation would nuke a nation just for drone attacks.

Nukes are there to keep our Indian friends away from us.

 

[booo]

OMG, why are you so much obsessed in "some country" ought to nuke US???

I pray that the last nuclear incident was chernobyl and there wont be any more.

 

[jeypore]

I can see RAW and CIA has not gotten to you!!!!! Slippery dog you!!!

 

[kaal2009]

Reportedly India and China are seeking land in Africa to grow food. I have suggested (see my blog) India taking control of Australia militarily, for 'lebensraum' (living space) and other purposes. I have repeatedly emphasised that nuclear supremacy over the strongest white country is needed as much for economic reasons as any other. As I have explained, the United States is using Indians and Chinese as slave labour. Supremacy in arms -- which means nuclear supremacy -- is vital for every thing, including the maintenance of national integration and the happiness and loyalty of all its citizens.

Many Sikhs came and settled in California as farmers a century ago. There is no reason why India should not aim to take control of California militarily, as the United States invades countries of West Asia/Middle East for its oil. A nuclear first strike with just two twenty kiloton warheads on New York and Washington, accompanied with a warning of similar deliveries to additional cities such as Chicago if there is any retaliation, will make this possible along with a lot of other things. (see the link at the bottom of post # 1 above).

The United States has been trying to break-up countries of the Indian subcontinent for a long time, for its own purposes. India can break-up the United States for its own purposes. The United States subjugates governments around the world including the Indian subcontinent for such purposes. India can and must subjugate the United States, break it up and use it for its own purposes. China has such a vision. India can do it much, much faster with a first strike with just two twenty kiloton warheads on New York and Washington, accompanied with a warning of similar deliveries to additional cities such as Chicago if there is any retaliation. Tiny England, whom Indians so much admire, took possession of two entire continents -- North America and Australia -- and a lot more, including India, for its people. The Americans trying to enslave me (see my blog) has been part of the same movement of enslaving and exploiting other people; the other Indians are already enslaved and I needed to be enslaved. As I have said in a press release dated November 8, 2008, India must "dominate, rather than be dominated by, the intellectually and morally inferior ‘mlecchas’ of the West and do whatever is necessary to enslave and, if necessary, exterminate them. And it WILL be necessary".

China is planning to take over Texas, which, along with California and Arizona, etc. was once part of Mexico, in collaboration with Mexico. India can plan to use parts of the American South as well, possibly in collaboration with China and Mexico. Ideally the white population of the United States should be pushed into its Northeast and into Canada, which is almost empty and has an area equal to the United States and, climatewise, will suit the whites very well. (Instead of fighting each other, India, Pakistan and other countries of the subcontinent can collaborate in this enterprise). The United States now has a substantial and rapidly growing population of Mexican origin, already its largest minority which insists on keeping its language and culture and links to Mexico. It can be expected to help, though India can do the whole thing all by itself, too.

What the British did in the Indian subcontinent and what the Americans are doing now in the Indian subcontinent on the pretext of fighting terrorism all boils down to the conquest of territory. The British conquerors were patronising Indians and perhaps magnanimously allowing them a few upper level government jobs in India itself. India has to reverse this and conquer the territory of the United States and push the white population into Canada. I have shown how it can do this by means of a first strike with just two twenty kiloton warheads on Washington and New York, with a warning of similar deliveries to additional cities such as Chicago if there is any retaliation.

 

[Luftwaffe]

500 nukes for India for fiction supremacy over US is enough 10,000 nukes are you going to nuke each and every downtown in US States and districts

 

[kaal2009]

Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are important. No less important is the strategy in their use. I have said:

In a first strike, just two nuclear warheads of even twenty kilotons each delivered to Washington and New York will increase India's power millions of times. These will be accompanied with a warning of similar deliveries to additional cities such as Chicago if there is any retaliation. These two twenty kiloton deliveries will destroy not just these cities but the United States and will be even more effective than multiple warheads in the megaton range delivered to each major city of the United States.

I have emphasised, in bold, the last sentence. THINK about what it says and how that is true.

 

[white_pawn]

Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are important. No less important is the strategy in their use. I have said:

In a first strike, just two nuclear warheads of even twenty kilotons each delivered to Washington and New York will increase India's power millions of times. These will be accompanied with a warning of similar deliveries to additional cities such as Chicago if there is any retaliation.

The word in bold means alot more and just "retaliation" if anyone drops nuclear warheads on 2 cities and the retaliation from US side would be similar to destruction of that country.

These two twenty kiloton deliveries will destroy not just these cities but the United States and will be even more effective than multiple warheads in the megaton range delivered to each major city of the United States

.

Just think with the cool mind, is it worth to do so.

 

[kaal2009]

On December 25, 2008, I wrote:-

"Another point that needs to be made is the capacity of countries like India and Pakistan, with a low degree of urbanisation, to survive a full-fledged nuclear war against a country such as the United States which has a high degree of urbanisation. If both India and the United States launch 5,000 nuclear warheads at each other, targeting the 4,000 largest population centers in the other country (let us assume for simplicity that anti-missile systems are not a significant factor with such a large number of warheads, though, in fact, I have predicted India's anti-missile systems will be far more effective than the United States'), what percentage of India's population will be in its 4,000 largest population centers as compared to the percentage of the United States' population that will be in its 4,000 largest population centers? The fact of the matter is that even if 60% or 90% or 95% of India's population perishes in a full-scale nuclear war with the United States, the remaining population -- say 50 million -- will equal India's population in its classical period and India will survive, with a life-style comparable to that in its classical period. On the other hand, the United States cannot survive the destruction of its 4,000 largest population centers because of the high degree of urbanisation, technology intensive life-styles and other cultural factors. To put it another way, if India loses ALL its electricity permanently, it will survive; the United States cannot. I am predicting that the population of the United States that survives being killed immediately by the nuclear explosions will survive for a limited time period by people eating one another till no one remains alive."

In fact, the United States will not survive even the destruction of Washington and New York in a first strike by India with just two twenty kiloton warheads accompanied by a warning to destroy additional cities like Chicago if there is any retaliation. A first strike by India makes the crucial difference. It will increase India's power millions of times while the United States, though the people will not be eating one another, will be destroyed.

 

[booo]

I have suggested (see my blog) India taking control of Australia militarily, for 'lebensraum' (living space) and other purposes.