Are nukes over-rated?

[no smoking]

Ever heard about our anti missile shield?

Yes, and I also know your anti-missile shield is not functioning as good as you think.
Don't put too much faith on those AMDs because their abilities are VERY VERY LIMITED, or USELESS in a nuclear war.

But we can tackle easily in such a war.
Yet we will try to to remain away for our economy, but if we are involved deliberately without our wish, we will see it as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our power.
We have worked for years to come in league of big dogs.

No, you can't. Even Americans can't do that.

What's the size of Japan?
1. India is too large to be destroyed.
2. India can intercept a remarkable number of nuclear attacks before touching surface.
3. And most important thing,
India will nuke you back!!

First, please leave BMD aside, India's system is just on the beginning stage, still decades away from mature;
Second, India can't be destroyed by hundreds of nukes or even thousands, but with major cities hit by nukes, India can be broke;
Third, Pakistan doesn't care if you nuke back or not. They are losing before shooting the nuke already. They are taking you to the hell with them together.

If any idiot considers us Japan, that will be proved to be a lethal misunderstanding.:biggrin2:

Oh, no, you will be worse than Japan if such a war happens.
Japan was hit by only 2 bombs while you will receive 100 with 10 times yields of each.
Besides, at the time, Japan only had 40m population. India, alone, will have a billion refugees.

Anyway, both India and China has No FirFirst Use Policy. So, nuke war is impossible between us. We are talking about pakiland, and I've told you many times, pakis bombs are cracker size, even then can be easily intercepted, they and their rusted missiles
they should be happy even if they manage to destroy some cross border villages.

We will thank pakistan if they nuke us.
Reason:
As of nuclear policy, our constitution gives us right to wipe out their failed state from the map with full escalation nuke war.
That can be balance if pakland uses both conventional and nuclear weapons against India's conventional forces only.
But if India brings nuke war in scenario, in that case pak vs India would be like fist fighter vs Machine Gun. :biggrin2:

How old are you? 12?

 

[no smoking]

Hmm so whatever remains of Pakistan becomes Indian bitch and they get a chance of redemption and can develope fast. Not a bad deal.

Oh, no, at the time, yourselves will be someone else's bitch already.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Yes, and I also know your anti-missile shield is not functioning as good as you think.
Don't put too much faith on those AMDs because their abilities are VERY VERY LIMITED, or USELESS in a nuclear war.

Who told you that? fully functional. Anyway, it's China who doesn't possess any anti missile shield.

No, you can't. Even Americans can't do that.

In that case, your commie red hell would be ruined under feet.

First, please leave BMD aside, India's system is just on the beginning stage, still decades away from mature;

As told before, it is mature and fully operational.
Will we have to falungong for winning war like you chinkys? :
Case is different we are making it better.
Care about your country who is still dependent of imported S400. What pathetic scenario will be seen in Bejing if a nuke war breaks out.
:biggrin2:

Second, India can't be destroyed by hundreds of nukes or even thousands, but with major cities hit by nukes, India can be broke;

And that intelligent country will be nuked for a striking on a triad nuclear power who has second strike capability.

Third, Pakistan doesn't care if you nuke back or not. They are losing before shooting the nuke already. They are taking you to the hell with them together.

Their nukes are baby sized. They can't destroy a village. But they will give us license to wipe them out from map and send them back to their Allah.
Speed of nuking is also a big factor.
Plus they will have to first prevent themselves from our cold start attack (sudden full escalation without any warning from land, water, air at any random major city in seconds)
First, their junked missile based on 60s Chinese technology can be easily intercepted.
Second, do you know the range of their only uninterceptable missile. That's just 60Km.

Oh, no, you will be worse than Japan if such a war happens.
Japan was hit by only 2 bombs while you will receive 100 with 10 times yields of each.
Besides, at the time, Japan only had 40m population. India, alone, will have a billion refugees.

As told before, Japan had no nukes, no anti missile shield, no second strike capability, no such large conventional forces.
Nor Japan had capability of nuking the world.

How old are you? 12?

My friend told me that communists are idiots. But this extent!! OMG
(Off topic answer for off topic question).

Oh, no, at the time, yourselves will be someone else's bitch already.

You guys must have experience of doing that.

 

[garg_bharat]

Ofcourse nukes are overrated upto an extent. Its more of an psychological weapon then a tactical one. Especially if you are considering two immediate neighbours like India-Pakistan or India-China. It does hold some influence in USA-Russia scenario, but even there it is not a practical weapon to talk about in Russia-NATO alliance European countries like Germany.

I think neither India can destroy Pakistan with its nuclear weapons, nor Pakistan can do the same to India.

The nukes can cause large damage no doubt, but both countries are quite big and the current numbers of weapons cannot produce a miraculous result.

The USA thinking has always been based on USA's ability to win a nuclear war, a war in which thousands of nukes are used. So clearly USA thinks enough of humanity and its military power will survive a nuclear war.

There is no alternative to conventional military power. Not only you have to win land, you have to hold and sustain it. The second part is more critical than the first.

 

[Kshatriya87]

Concrete Proves Invulnerable

Does this mean that even metal (tanks) is a good defense? If so, the Nasr tacticals aren't of much use are they?

This explosion had three lethal qualities. They were: blast, heat and radiation.

He forgot pressure, which is one of the most lethal elements of a nuclear explosion. Maybe its because he was far away and didn't notice it. Or he didn't know about it at all.

All danger of lingering radiation has disappeared after 90 seconds.

The radiation might have passed away quickly as the ground zero was in the middle of the dessert (probably Nevada) and the wind speed is high and consistent. Whereas, in a dense city with buildings like Mumbai, the wind is not that strong and/or consistent. The radiation might stay for hours, or get carried slowly to the suburbs.

 

[Kshatriya87]

@Sakal Gharelu Ustad None of these articles say anything about the fertility of land. It is also said that the land in the blast radius becomes infertile for 20 years. Now I wonder if that is a myth as well.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Does this mean that even metal (tanks) is a good defense? If so, the Nasr tacticals aren't of much use are they?



He forgot pressure, which is one of the most lethal elements of a nuclear explosion. Maybe its because he was far away and didn't notice it. Or he didn't know about it at all.



The radiation might have passed away quickly as the ground zero was in the middle of the dessert (probably Nevada) and the wind speed is high and consistent. Whereas, in a dense city with buildings like Mumbai, the wind is not that strong and/or consistent. The radiation might stay for hours, or get carried slowly to the suburbs.

That was a personal rather than a scientific account. You should look at the graph in third post to check the time of decay.

Pressure is important but I think that will only impact the area of direct impact where the explosion will result into the crater. But that would be an immediate impact and not linger on.

Now coming to tank survival, here are some good posts: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/12323/could-a-tank-survive-a-nuclear-blast

If you play with the Kingerly-Bulmash equation, you will notice that a human can survive the blast wave from about 3km away. Obviously, a tank can get closer, but I do not know how much the tank wall impedes mechanical waves. Therefore, I know that the tank can be closer, but I cannot confidently say by how much.

At 3km away, you need to worry more about the radiation than the shock wave. Not knowing how much an Abrams tank absorbs radiation, I can only say that the tank will likely be a good spot (with its high-density armor) to avoid irradiation.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@Sakal Gharelu Ustad None of these articles say anything about the fertility of land. It is also said that the land in the blast radius becomes infertile for 20 years. Now I wonder if that is a myth as well.

20 years would be too small a time period if it is due to radiation. But because most of the radiation is spread over a larger area and hence does not affect any place too much.

 

[no smoking]

I think neither India can destroy Pakistan with its nuclear weapons, nor Pakistan can do the same to India.
The nukes can cause large damage no doubt, but both countries are quite big and the current numbers of weapons cannot produce a miraculous result.

No, but both have the necessary number to hit the major cities of each side. These cities are not only the concentration of population, but also the transport centres of railway, road and port. More importantly, these cities are also the key part of your electricity network and industrial centre.

If these cities are gone or damaged badly, the society as a whole will stop working for a quite long time: factories stop producing the aiding material, government has difficulties sending food/medical goods to those who need them.

Unlike P5, neither of you prepared necessaries to absorb a nuclear war.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

No, but both have the necessary number to hit the major cities of each side. These cities are not only the concentration of population, but also the transport centres of railway, road and port. More importantly, these cities are also the key part of your electricity network and industrial centre.

If these cities are gone or damaged badly, the society as a whole will stop working for a quite long time: factories stop producing the aiding material, government has difficulties sending food/medical goods to those who need them.

Unlike P5, neither of you prepared necessaries to absorb a nuclear war.

Yes. Mr 2 cents! China is super prepared for everything!

 

[garg_bharat]

No, but both have the necessary number to hit the major cities of each side. These cities are not only the concentration of population, but also the transport centres of railway, road and port. More importantly, these cities are also the key part of your electricity network and industrial centre.

If these cities are gone or damaged badly, the society as a whole will stop working for a quite long time: factories stop producing the aiding material, government has difficulties sending food/medical goods to those who need them.

Unlike P5, neither of you prepared necessaries to absorb a nuclear war.

Your assumption is theoretical.
Your scenario is an ideal case scenario. There are so many variables.

Pakistan wanted nukes for prestige in the Muslim world, not to kill and get killed by India. If Chinese make an assumption that Pakistan is suicidal, the fault is with China.

I do not want to make an assumption about Pakistani nukes, but I can say safely that India will respond in kind with a force that is 3x-5x the Pakistani attack. Given the sizes of both countries, you can calculate who will suffer more.

However after saying that, I know for sure that nobody responsible in India wants to start a nuclear war.

 

[no smoking]

Your assumption is theoretical.
Your scenario is an ideal case scenario. There are so many variables.

Pakistan wanted nukes for prestige in the Muslim world, not to kill and get killed by India. If Chinese make an assumption that Pakistan is suicidal, the fault is with China.

No, Pakistan wanted nuke to balance India. It was India rejected their offer of non-nuclearized south Asia;
They had their nuclear bombs ready long before 1998. But they didn't explode it until India did. So, it was the fault of India.

I do not want to make an assumption about Pakistani nukes, but I can say safely that India will respond in kind with a force that is 3x-5x the Pakistani attack. Given the sizes of both countries, you can calculate who will suffer more.

First, you don't have that much warheads;
Second, it doesn't matter who suffers more. The point is both will suffer BADLY.

However after saying that, I know for sure that nobody responsible in India wants to start a nuclear war.

Well, it is not those responsible in India, the problem is those who are not responsible in India, like some Indians in this forum, who somehow believe Pakistan nuke is harmless and India will be ok after a nuclear war. This kind of stupidity is quite scary.

 

[garg_bharat]

No, Pakistan wanted nuke to balance India. It was India rejected their offer of non-nuclearized south Asia;
They had their nuclear bombs ready long before 1998. But they didn't explode it until India did. So, it was the fault of India.



First, you don't have that much warheads;
Second, it doesn't matter who suffers more. The point is both will suffer BADLY.



Well, it is not those responsible in India, the problem is those who are not responsible in India, like some Indians in this forum, who somehow believe Pakistan nuke is harmless and India will be ok after a nuclear war. This kind of stupidity is quite scary.

You are repeating lies, and a discussion is NOT possible if one side takes cover in lies and propaganda.

How do you know "Why Pakistan wanted nukes".
How do you know "How many warheads India has".
How do you know "How many warheads Pakistan has".

First answer above questions and then we can proceed.

 

[garg_bharat]

Nobody assumes Pakistan's nukes are harmless. Such statements are amusing.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

No, Pakistan wanted nuke to balance India. It was India rejected their offer of non-nuclearized south Asia;
They had their nuclear bombs ready long before 1998. But they didn't explode it until India did. So, it was the fault of India.



First, you don't have that much warheads;
Second, it doesn't matter who suffers more. The point is both will suffer BADLY.



Well, it is not those responsible in India, the problem is those who are not responsible in India, like some Indians in this forum, who somehow believe Pakistan nuke is harmless and India will be ok after a nuclear war. This kind of stupidity is quite scary.

Actually nukes are not harmless. India should send some to Beijing when it sends love to Rawalpindi.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Ancient Indian]

No, India hasn't seen anything even close to ww2, let alone a nuclear war.

Some how India was not involved in any of the world affairs. It was all china.
Guess winners decide what is history and what is not.

 

[Razor]

Yes. Mr 2 cents! China is super prepared for everything!

I think you mean 50 cents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

 

[A chauhan]

@Sakal Gharelu Ustad You have successfully proved that nukes are over-rated!

Let's first look at Pakistan's nuclear program:

Pakistan uses yellowcake centrifuge method which takes 3-5 years for a 30 kiloton warhead

Pakistan has negligible to insignificant fissile material reserves a sustained nuclear exchange is unlikely

Pakistan's nuclear warhead is about 5-20 kilotons. Pakistanis claim 30kiloton capacity

Pakistani nuclear test results were inconclusive and radioactive levels detected by spy planes were negligible ( unproven)

Pakistani nuclear program is almost totally dependent on China and others for fuel and assessories (centrifuges etc....)

Pakistani has a policy of first use .

Pakistani vague nuclear policy relies on tactical nukes possibly due to lack of capability to produce bigger nukes? Tactical nukes have almost no role in most modern military strategy

Pakistan has two main delivery systems missiles and dropping from f-16's
Missiles are scud based and cruise missiles. Pakistan has not proven
Miniaturization of nuclear Warheads to be able to mate warheads on the small
missiles like cruise missiles.
AWACS and BMD sukhois etc... India currently has enough to neutralize both
India has completed the nuclear triad.

Pakistan has threatened nuking civilian areas ( against most international laws)
Would India also target civilians?

Pakistan nuclear capacity of 5-20 kilotons would damage a limited area but it would not be civilization ending.

Pakistani nuclear capability could not win a war . It is a blackmail which India has no reply.

One proposal is to throw out the Indus water supply. Any nuclear exchange would contaminate the water supply . So why share the water ?

And @LF you proved that Pakistan too is unprepared for nuclear war with India, so India has the advantage.

That means India can punish Pakistan for cross border terrorism destroying the terror camps.

 

[A chauhan]

I think neither India can destroy Pakistan with its nuclear weapons, nor Pakistan can do the same to India...

There is no alternative to conventional military power. Not only you have to win land, you have to hold and sustain it. The second part is more critical than the first.

Pakistan as a country never existed ! so yes we can destroy Pakistan, here destruction=partition on ideological/ethnic grounds and weakening and causing failure to the Pak economy, but Pakistan can not do the same to us.

No, Pakistan wanted nuke to balance India. It was India rejected their offer of non-nuclearized south Asia;
They had their nuclear bombs ready long before 1998. But they didn't explode it until India did. So, it was the fault of India.

First, you don't have that much warheads;
Second, it doesn't matter who suffers more. The point is both will suffer BADLY.

Well, it is not those responsible in India, the problem is those who are not responsible in India, like some Indians in this forum, who somehow believe Pakistan nuke is harmless and India will be ok after a nuclear war. This kind of stupidity is quite scary.

You are again repeating the Chinese rhetoric on Indo-Pak scenario. India has no first use policy, period.

Whatever we are talking here "on nuking Pakistan" is just about retaliation, now pleaseee ! don't expect us to not use nukes against Pakistan if they nuke us.

 

[no smoking]

You are repeating lies, and a discussion is NOT possible if one side takes cover in lies and propaganda.

How do you know "Why Pakistan wanted nukes".

A couple of simply facts-

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the man started Pakistan's nuclear weapon, said:"If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. "

His daughter testified "preparations for a nuclear test had been made in 1977"

Pakistan's bombs were exploded just weeks after India's test. This means that they already had the bombs ready long before 1998. They had just been waiting for India's move.

How do you know "How many warheads India has".
How do you know "How many warheads Pakistan has".

Public source. Unless you can pull out some confidential documents from India government, all we can do is using public source.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat