seeder Posted September 30, 2016 #1 Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) I keep seeing things like this at various news sites Quote New Delhi (CNN) Could India and Pakistan really go to war? This is a question that has long been purely rhetorical - and almost absurd. After all, both countries have long been nuclear powers, a deterrent that encompasses the lives of a combined 1.4 billion people. Both nations have also seen some years of relative peace along their border, a break from the wars that pockmarked the 20th century. And yet, Today the question seems less absurd, and more urgent. India is claiming to have launched what it calls a "surgical strike" across what is known as the Line of Control with Pakistan. India's version of events is that its strike attacked a terrorist launching pad. Pakistan denies that the site of the attack was a terrorist base, pointing out that two of its soldiers have been killed. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/21/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-conflict/ Edited September 30, 2016 by seeder 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted September 30, 2016 #2 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Considering a of of countries have nukes now, they have to realize there are no winners in a nuke war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted October 1, 2016 #3 Share Posted October 1, 2016 when did they stop? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted October 1, 2016 Author #4 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Quote NUCLEAR FACE-OFF: Pakistan threatens to DESTROY India in terrifying war of words PAKISTAN has threatened to DESTROY India in a terrifying war of words between the two nuclear powers. The arch enemies - who both possess a formidable nuclear arsenal - threaten the safety of the world as Pakistan ramped up the threats against its neighbour. Pakistan’s defence minister, Minister Khawaja Asif, has threatened to “destroy” India, after it confirmed it had launched a series of “surgical strikes” against suspected militants sneaking across the border. The two countries have observed a ceasefire since 2003, but the peace is fragile and the latest escalation between both parties could lead to all-out warfare. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/716401/India-Pakistan-nuclear-war-threat-enemies-neighbours-weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 1, 2016 #5 Share Posted October 1, 2016 I could imagine a big land war. I've read that India has nearly a million soldiers and Pakistan around 250 thousand right on the border, in contested Kashmir region. That would make a pretty big ground war in my opinion. If it went to nukes, I think it would be Pakistan going first, and probably in an unconventional manner. If they just fired missiles, they'd get missiles back. So any nuke attack would probably be land delivered and many of them detonated all at once. Again, I don't think that will happen, because then the entire rest of the world would gang up to turn Pakistan into a large patch of turned over earth. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted October 1, 2016 #6 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Up until Afganistan, China,India, and Pakistan were thretening to blow each other up. once the U.S. and NATO established bases in Afganistan things got pretty quiet,no I don't think that they will engage. jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 1, 2016 #7 Share Posted October 1, 2016 8 hours ago, jmccr8 said: Up until Afganistan, China,India, and Pakistan were thretening to blow each other up. once the U.S. and NATO established bases in Afganistan things got pretty quiet,no I don't think that they will engage. jmccr8 I think you are correct - as long as the ISI doesn't topple the secular government. THAT would be a real mess for the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 1, 2016 #8 Share Posted October 1, 2016 15 hours ago, DieChecker said: I could imagine a big land war. I've read that India has nearly a million soldiers and Pakistan around 250 thousand right on the border, in contested Kashmir region. That would make a pretty big ground war in my opinion. If it went to nukes, I think it would be Pakistan going first, and probably in an unconventional manner. If they just fired missiles, they'd get missiles back. So any nuke attack would probably be land delivered and many of them detonated all at once. Again, I don't think that will happen, because then the entire rest of the world would gang up to turn Pakistan into a large patch of turned over earth. ...i agree with you assessment. Pakistan would lose a conventional war with India and with nothing to lose go nuclear. Mind you China is Pakistan's closest ally and they might get embroiled in any war. I just wanna know why has a country like Pakistan even got nuclear weapons? And India for that mater. What exactly are they protecting? Poverty? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted October 2, 2016 #9 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Silver_Lyre said: ...i agree with you assessment. Pakistan would lose a conventional war with India and with nothing to lose go nuclear. Mind you China is Pakistan's closest ally and they might get embroiled in any war. I just wanna know why has a country like Pakistan even got nuclear weapons? And India for that mater. What exactly are they protecting? Poverty? India developed it's nuclear weapon to deter future aggression from China after it lost some territory in a brief border war with China in the Himalayan mountains in 1962. Then Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to deter Indian aggression after it had a crushing defeat in the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971. So basically each country developed nuclear weapons to deter aggression from a neighbor that recently beat them in a war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #10 Share Posted October 2, 2016 2 hours ago, DarkHunter said: India developed it's nuclear weapon to deter future aggression from China after it lost some territory in a brief border war with China in the Himalayan mountains in 1962. Then Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to deter Indian aggression after it had a crushing defeat in the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971. So basically each country developed nuclear weapons to deter aggression from a neighbor that recently beat them in a war. Cheers. That interesting to know. So basically these third world nations decided that nuclear weapons were okay to stop aggression. Maybe all countries should get them and that would hopefully stop wars. Just kidding of course but you got to see the funny side DarkHunter. All these nations looking for "peace" by developing nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 2, 2016 #11 Share Posted October 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Silver_Lyre said: Cheers. That interesting to know. So basically these third world nations decided that nuclear weapons were okay to stop aggression. Maybe all countries should get them and that would hopefully stop wars. Just kidding of course but you got to see the funny side DarkHunter. All these nations looking for "peace" by developing nuclear weapons. Some people honestly think that is the answer. Hand out nukes to people like Duarte in the Philippines, who says he admires Hitler and wants be more like him. Imagine what some central African nations that support genocide of entire ethnic groups would do if they had small nukes. It is an incredibly stupid idea, if you ask me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #12 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Just now, DieChecker said: Some people honestly think that is the answer. Hand out nukes to people like Duarte in the Philippines, who says he admires Hitler and wants be more like him. Imagine what some central African nations that support genocide of entire ethnic groups would do if they had small nukes. It is an incredibly stupid idea, if you ask me. Well giving or helping such economic and democracy poor nations develop nuclear weapons is stupid. If i were a citizen of such a country i would prefer that my government used the money wisely to grow the economy and democracy rather than fuel some stupid wanna be strongman's desires. But the reality is, like DarkHunter has hinted, that your neighbours might view such no armament policies as a sign of weakness and invade. I think part of the reason that Ukraine is in the mess its in is due to its boundaries being set in exchange for handing over all nukes it inherited from the Communist soviet Union. If they had nukes do you think that Russia would have meddled and annexed parts of the country? I guess there are two sides to an argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 2, 2016 #13 Share Posted October 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, Silver_Lyre said: But the reality is, like DarkHunter has hinted, that your neighbours might view such no armament policies as a sign of weakness and invade. I think that is why there is the UN and why such nations form alliances with the stronger countries. If Pakistan was invaded by India, on a large scale, then wouldn't the entire Islamic world, and Russia, and China, and the US, all step forward and work to end it? It would be in all their best interests to stop India conquering Pakistan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 2, 2016 #14 Share Posted October 2, 2016 10 hours ago, DieChecker said: I think that is why there is the UN and why such nations form alliances with the stronger countries. If Pakistan was invaded by India, on a large scale, then wouldn't the entire Islamic world, and Russia, and China, and the US, all step forward and work to end it? It would be in all their best interests to stop India conquering Pakistan. I admit not being up to speed on Kashmir but even with that irritant I don't recall India threatening the Paks with destruction. Ultimately it is proliferation that is the problem and now that a US president has given Iran the keys to the kingdom, anti-proliferation is essentially dead. Iran will field a weapon at their discretion and S.A and the Gulf states will answer within a few years - unless Iran's leaders actually decide to USE the damned things. As the numbers grow, the chances increase that someone will get one that really isn't stable enough to have it. Imagine THAT day. Imagine 9-11 but with the news of potentially millions dead and wounded. The whole world will be afraid, then ANGRY, I think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 2, 2016 #15 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I would advise against using Nukes as the trump card in all and any future negotiations as well as using Trump as a nuke card ... ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted October 2, 2016 #16 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, and then said: I admit not being up to speed on Kashmir but even with that irritant I don't recall India threatening the Paks with destruction. Ultimately it is proliferation that is the problem and now that a US president has given Iran the keys to the kingdom, anti-proliferation is essentially dead. Iran will field a weapon at their discretion and S.A and the Gulf states will answer within a few years - unless Iran's leaders actually decide to USE the damned things. As the numbers grow, the chances increase that someone will get one that really isn't stable enough to have it. Imagine THAT day. Imagine 9-11 but with the news of potentially millions dead and wounded. The whole world will be afraid, then ANGRY, I think. Saudi Arabia would respond within days of Iran having a nuke instead of years. Saudi Arabia funded a large part of Pakistan's nuclear program with the condition that if the need arise Saudi Arabia would be able to procure nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They would more then likely start their own nuclear program which would take years but they would have nukes quickly after Iran test their first one. But once Iran gets nuclear weapons then anti-proliferation will be dead. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungleboogie Posted October 10, 2016 #17 Share Posted October 10, 2016 On 9/30/2016 at 5:49 PM, seeder said: I keep seeing things like this at various news sitesCould India and Pakistan really go to war? No. They are far too used to border squabbles and skirmishes. It's clickbait headlining. Both countries have nuclear weapons and are next to each other. So, no. Warmongering always gets clicks and sells papers, journalism is a business, just like any other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted October 13, 2016 #18 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If they went to war it would be a clear-cut case of mutually assured stupidity. Just yet another case of a Moslem country having hostile relations with a non Moslem country. Lacking such a neighbor they simply make war on each other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 13, 2016 #19 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Everybody loves Kashmir ... ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Grey Posted October 13, 2016 #20 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I wonder what the fallout would look like based on air and wind patterns in the region. There are a lot of people and countries in that area so besides the tragic devastation of India and Pakistan, I imagine the sickness and death of nuclear material isn't going to respect national borders. Or is that only a concern with dirty bombs? Complete speculation from someone who likes to speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted October 13, 2016 #21 Share Posted October 13, 2016 They could go to war, I certainly hope they won't. India would wipe the floor with Pakistan in a conventional struggle. However, nukes are present...and so is islamist fundamentalism. Not a good mix that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 14, 2016 #22 Share Posted October 14, 2016 On 10/13/2016 at 9:46 AM, Dark_Grey said: I wonder what the fallout would look like based on air and wind patterns in the region. There are a lot of people and countries in that area so besides the tragic devastation of India and Pakistan, I imagine the sickness and death of nuclear material isn't going to respect national borders. Or is that only a concern with dirty bombs? Complete speculation from someone who likes to speculate. Fallout depends on the weather conditions and how much material is thrown into the air. Most bombs are designed to detonate in the air above a target to get the maximum destructive effect on structures and personnel. Even airbursts of this kind will scoop up some earth, building debris and so forth that will become radioactive and settle to ground eventually. Dirty bombs use no nuclear chan reaction to do their damage. They are just waste nuclear material wrapped around an explosive. They make a mess and would cost millions to clean up but their primary use is to generate fear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Grey Posted October 14, 2016 #23 Share Posted October 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, and then said: Fallout depends on the weather conditions and how much material is thrown into the air. Most bombs are designed to detonate in the air above a target to get the maximum destructive effect on structures and personnel. Even airbursts of this kind will scoop up some earth, building debris and so forth that will become radioactive and settle to ground eventually. Dirty bombs use no nuclear chan reaction to do their damage. They are just waste nuclear material wrapped around an explosive. They make a mess and would cost millions to clean up but their primary use is to generate fear. Right - I forget the bomb detonates over head. Nasty business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted October 14, 2016 #24 Share Posted October 14, 2016 when the ****tards who start the wars, have to fight them; we will know peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted October 15, 2016 #25 Share Posted October 15, 2016 8 hours ago, Dark_Grey said: Right - I forget the bomb detonates over head. Nasty business. Even then fallout only really remains dangerous for 3 days before it drops off by like 80% to 90% then after another few days it's barely above background levels of radiation. That is assuming you are relatively close to the nuclear blast if you are further out given dispersion and the amount of time it would take for the debris to settle there might not be any risk of radiation from fallout at all. The further away from a nuclear blast the less concentrated the fallout is and the more time it had to be in upper atmosphere to lose radioactivity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now