India will wipe off Pak, but at a heavy price: Report

Discussion in 'China' started by youngindian, Sep 29, 2009.

  1. youngindian

    youngindian Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    71
    Tuesday, September 29, 2009

    New York: In the event of Indo-Pak nuclear war, India will emerge as the ultimate winner after wiping off Pakistan, but lose up to 500 million of its own people, a book on former US President Bill Clinton's presidential years has claimed.

    Pulitzer Prize-Winning author and historian Taylor Branch claimed that the Indian leaders had portrayed such a scenario in the event of an Indo-Pak nuclear war (during Kargil conflict in 1999) to the then US President Clinton.

    The portion on nuclear warfare appears in the chapter titled 'Eight Missiles in Baghdad', in which the author of the book claims that Clinton told him that New Delhi would nuke Pakistan annihilating the entire country, if anyone in Islamabad triggered the nuclear bombs against it."The president first scribbled a note to himself that Strobb Talbott owed him a report on his recent trip to South Asia," Branch writes in his 700-page book 'The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President', referring to the taped conversations he had with Clinton in the White House.

    Talbott, now president of the Brookings Institute, served under the Clinton Administration during 1993-2001.

    The book, which hit the stores today, has claimed to give an insight into the eight years of Clinton's presidency, which has not been heard before.

    "He called this the one region on the globe facing a serious threat of nuclear war between two nations, India and Pakistan. Their mutual enmity was historically constant, yet chillingly erratic," Branch writes.

    "In private, he (Clinton) disclosed, Indian officials spoke of knowing roughly how many nuclear bombs the Pakistanis possessed, from which they calculated that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 to 500 million Indians while annihilating all 120 million Pakistanis. The Indians would thus claim "victory" on the strength of several hundred million countrymen they figured would be left over," he writes.

    "But on the other side, the Pakistanis insisted that their rugged mountain terrain would shield more survivors than the exposed plains of India. "They really talk that way," Clinton sighed. "We have bad relations with both of them," he continued," Branch writes in his book.

    Based on the series of conversations he had with Clinton during his presidential years, Branch says: "Locked in their arms race, India was furious that the United States had agreed to sell F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, and Pakistan was no less enraged that the United States refused to deliver the planes years after receiving payment."

    Such transfers remained blocked since 1990 under the Pressler Amendment, which prohibited military sales to any country found to be developing nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    "Even worse for the Pakistanis, said Clinton, US law obliged his administration to collect storage payments from Pakistan on its impounded F-16s gathering rust in American custody," Branch said.

    "The president hoped to devise a rebate or remedy for these grossly unfair charges, which he called a diplomatic insult, but he saw no cure for the larger strategic impasse over South Asia," he said.

    Clinton said the United States was trying to hold the line on a treaty that fed hostility and opportunism.

    "If we didn't try to enforce the ban on nuclear proliferation, plenty of countries would rush to sell the required technologies on our example," Clinton was quoted as saying.

    "As long as we did try, however, we would draw upon ourselves some of the extraordinary venom between India and Pakistan," Clinton was quoted. Branch wrote, Clinton said this issue demanded persistence. "His impression was that Talbott's trip turned up little of promise, but he wanted the details," the book said.

    India will wipe off Pak, but at a heavy price: Report
     
  2.  
  3. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,267
    Location:
    011
    What a stupid take on things by Zee News.



    Clearly India wanted to show her commitment to retaliatory strike to scare Clinton and dissuade Pakistan. This is exactly what happened, hence the cessation of hostilities.
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,220
    Location:
    BANGalore
    500 million is a bit of an exaggeration. Even if you consider them to possess 90 nukes which is the most recent estimate, they cant kill half the Indian population with that. And all this provided India doesnt detect them fueling their birds and mating the warheads with it.
     
  5. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,267
    Location:
    011
    When Bill Clinton had to be scared



    Being prepared to press the red button ensures that it doesn’t have to be pressed


    So Bill Clinton has revealed that “Indian officials spoke of knowing roughly how many nuclear bombs the Pakistanis possessed, from which they calculated that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 [million] to 500 million Indians while annihilating all 120 million Pakistanis. The Indians would thus claim ‘victory’”. This is from Taylor Branch’s new book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, and is presumably in the context of the 1999 Kargil war. (linkthanks Pragmatic Euphony)

    In her report, DNA’s Uttara Chowdhury leads readers to thinking that this should anger the Indian government. “New Delhi,” she writes, “is likely to be furious with the observation, which portrays it as a government willing to play fast and loose with its citizens lives to notch up a bizarre win against Pakistan.”

    Why should New Delhi be furious when Mr Clinton’s words show that Indian officials ensured that the psychological aspect of nuclear deterrence was maintained during the crisis? For a country with a no-first use policy, it is imperative that there is no ambiguity in the minds of adversaries and observers with regard to its commitment to a retaliatory strike. If Mr Clinton was convinced that the red button would be pressed in retaliation, regardless—and perhaps more importantly, in spite of knowledge of the damage assessments—New Delhi should be pleased. Given his subsequent actions, this might have well been the case.


    It is unclear who made these statements to the Clinton administration—whether they were made by government officials or by interlocutors outside the government. Also, the damage assessment of 300 to 500 million Indian casualties appears overstated (given the state of Pakistan’s arsenal in 1999, at least)—it is unclear if this was a case of Indian officials deliberately overstating it to signal how much damage India was willing to accept; or indeed, a case of Mr Clinton exaggerating the numbers to show how abominable the Indian position was. (See an earlier post on MUD or mutually unacceptable destruction).

    The paradox of nuclear deterrence requires India to credibly demonstrate the unflinching resolve to cause mindless destruction in order to forestall it. To see this as playing “fast and loose” to notch a “bizarre win” is an uninformed, superficial and incorrect way to look at this issue.

    In fact, these revelations highlight an important aspect germane to the current public discussion over the minimum credible deterrent. Much of it revolves around the adequacy of the nuclear arsenal—despite broad consensus that the garden-variety 20kT fission warheads are deployed on multiple platforms. The crucial question is: can Indian officials continue to convince the Clintons of the world, like they did in 1999? The business of convincing cannot be left to serendipity—it must be institutionalised.

    When Bill Clinton had to be scared | The Acorn


    VV Niteshji this article will take away your laughter :p
     
  6. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I agree with yusuf what an exaggeration. Seriously these reports make me laugh :D
     
  7. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,187
    Likes Received:
    4,071
    I can not recall when and where exactly; our ex army chief Mr. Padamnabhan had quoted something like that in a press meet.
     
  8. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,187
    Likes Received:
    4,071
  9. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    237
    Location:
    Boston
    This is a scary scenario. Perhaps India and Pakistan should engage in talks and reach an agreement to ensure that a nuclear exchange would never happen. Instead of tough talk, it is better to negotiate before it is too late.
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,220
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Nothings going to happen Martian. Its a rubbish report.
    Trust you bottom cent, India and Pakistan will never use nukes.
     
  11. RPK

    RPK Indyakudimahan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,879
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    13° 4'60.00"N 80°16'60.00"E
    India for sure never use nuke.. But Pakistan I am not sure maybe or not.
    India hold no first use policy. But one lunch detected against india, Pakistan feel its consequence.
     
  12. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Pakistan would have a hard time killing 50 million, much less 500.
     
  13. prahladh

    prahladh Respected Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Universal Citizen
    Don't worry man. We will never let that happen. DFI members (exlcluding X & Y) are enough to destroy them.
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,338
    Likes Received:
    6,288
    This is silly to use nuclear weapons for countries that are right next to each other, not only will you kill your neighbor but you will kill yourselves from the radiation, and sharing the same source of water makes it even more dangerous to use these weapons, Pakistan may not view it in this way with the jihad mentality but there must be some reasonable and logical people hopefully in the government on both sides that can see this.
     
  15. Vikramaditya

    Vikramaditya Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    Bangalore, India, India
    What a rubbish report,thats not going to happen............
    Look like USA want indo-pak nuke war...........
     
  16. qsaark

    qsaark Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well let’s keep the emotions out. Which side can destroy how much can be predicted scientifically based on several factors that include:

    1. Type of the nuclear device(s) used i.e. Uranium or Plutonium

    2. Whether the devices were composed of ‘usable’ material or the ‘highly enriched’ high yield material

    3. Whether they are denoted above the ground or on the ground

    4. What was the meteorological pattern at the time of the blast and following the blast

    5. How much infra-structures and resources survived that could be used for the rehabilitation

    We know we will never come to this point as folks on both he sides know the consequences. Those who are interested more in the scientific predictions based on computer generated models may want to read the following:


    The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan

    NRDC's nuclear experts think about the unthinkable, using state-of-the-art nuclear war simulation software to assess the crisis in South Asia.

    The months-long military standoff between India and Pakistan intensified several weeks ago when suspected Islamic militants killed more than 30 people at an Indian base in the disputed territory of Kashmir. As U.S. diplomatic pressure to avert war intensifies, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to India and Pakistan this week to discuss with his South Asian counterparts the results of a classified Pentagon study that concludes that a nuclear war between these countries could result in 12 million deaths.

    NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has conducted its own analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia. Prior to this most recent crisis we calculated two nuclear scenarios. The first assumes 10 Hiroshima-sized explosions with no fallout; the second assumes 24 nuclear explosions with significant radioactive fallout. Below is a discussion of the two scenarios in detail and an exploration of several additional issues regarding nuclear war in South Asia.


    Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Forces

    It is difficult to determine the actual size and composition of India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, but NRDC estimates that both countries have a total of 50 to 75 weapons. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we believe India has about 30 to 35 nuclear warheads, slightly fewer than Pakistan, which may have as many as 48.

    Both countries have fission weapons, similar to the early designs developed by the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s. NRDC estimates their explosive yields are 5 to 25 kilotons (1 kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT). By comparison, the yield of the weapon the United States exploded over Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, while the bomb exploded over Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. According to a recent NRDC discussion with a senior Pakistani military official, Pakistan's main nuclear weapons are mounted on missiles. India's nuclear weapons are reportedly gravity bombs deployed on fighter aircraft.

    NRDC's Nuclear Program initially developed the software used to calculate the consequences of a South Asian nuclear war to examine and analyze the U.S. nuclear war planning process. We combined Department of Energy and Department of Defense computer codes with meteorological and demographic data to model what would happen in various kinds of attacks using different types of weapons. Our June 2001 report, "The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change," is available at NRDC: The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change.


    Scenario: 10 Bombs on 10 South Asian Cities

    For our first scenario we used casualty data from the Hiroshima bomb to estimate what would happen if bombs exploded over 10 large South Asian cities: five in India and five in Pakistan. (The results were published in "The Risks and Consequences of Nuclear War in South Asia," by NRDC physicist Matthew McKinzie and Princeton scientists Zia Mian, A. H. Nayyar and M. V. Ramana, a chapter in Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian (editors), "Out of the Nuclear Shadow" (Dehli: Lokayan and Rainbow Publishers, 2001).)

    The 15-kiloton yield of the Hiroshima weapon is approximately the size of the weapons now in the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals. The deaths and severe injuries experienced at Hiroshima were mainly a function of how far people were from ground zero. Other factors included whether people were in buildings or outdoors, the structural characteristics of the buildings themselves, and the age and health of the victims at the time of the attack. The closer to ground zero, the higher fatality rate. Further away there were fewer fatalities and larger numbers of injuries. The table below summarizes the first nuclear war scenario by superimposing the Hiroshima data onto five Indian and five Pakistan cities with densely concentrated populations.

    [​IMG]
    As in the case of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this scenario the 10 bombs over Indian and Pakistani cities would be exploded in the air, which maximized blast damage and fire but creates no fallout. On August 6, 1945, the United States exploded an untested uranium-235 gun-assembly bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy," 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. The city was home to an estimated 350,000 people; about 140,000 died by the end of the year. Three days later, at 11:02 am, the United States exploded a plutonium implosion bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" 1,650 feet above Nagasaki. About 70,000 of the estimated 270,000 residents died by the end of the year.

    Ten Hiroshima-size explosions over 10 major cities in India and Pakistan would kill as many as three to four times more people per bomb than in Japan because of the higher urban densities in Indian and Pakistani cities.

    Scenario: 24 Ground Bursts

    In January, NRDC calculated the consequences of a much more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It first appeared as a sidebar in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek ("A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes"). This scenario calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground -- unlike the Hiroshima airburst -- resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

    Exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, the United States detonated "Little Boy" weapon above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet. At this height, the radioactive particles produced in the explosion were small and light enough to rise into the upper atmosphere, where they were carried by the prevailing winds. Days to weeks later, after the radioactive bomb debris became less "hot," these tiny particles descended to earth as a measurable radioactive residue, but not at levels of contamination that would cause immediate radiation sickness or death.

    Unfortunately, it is easier to fuse a nuclear weapon to detonate on impact than it is to detonate it in the air -- and that means fallout. If the nuclear explosion takes place at or near the surface of the earth, the nuclear fireball would gouge out material and mix it with the radioactive bomb debris, producing heavier radioactive particles. These heavier particles would begin to drift back to earth within minutes or hours after the explosion, producing potentially lethal levels of nuclear fallout out to tens or hundreds of kilometers from the ground zero. The precise levels depend on the explosive yield of the weapon and the prevailing winds.

    For the second scenario, we calculated the fallout patterns and casualties for a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each country targeted major cities. We chose target cities throughout Pakistan and in northwestern India to take into account the limited range of Pakistani missiles or aircraft. The target cities, listed in the table below, include the capitals of Islamabad and New Dehli, and large cities, such as Karachi and Bombay. In this scenario, we assumed that a dozen, 25-kiloton warheads would be detonated as ground bursts in Pakistan and another dozen in India, producing substantial fallout.

    The devastation that would result from fallout would exceed that of blast and fire. NRDC's second scenario would produce far more horrific results than the first scenario because there would be more weapons, higher yields, and extensive fallout. In some large cities, we assumed more than one bomb would be used.

    [​IMG]
    NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.

    Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.

    Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario. Their respective military forces would be still be intact to continue and even escalate the conflict.


    Thinking the Unthinkable

    After India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, experts have debated whether their nuclear weapons contribute to stability in South Asia. Experts who argue that the nuclear standoff promotes stability have pointed to the U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War as an example of how deterrence ensures military restraint.

    NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

    A second difference is India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other's society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of "mutual assured destruction" that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War.

    The two South Asian scenarios assume nuclear attacks against cities. During the early Cold War period this was the deterrent strategy of the United States and the Soviet Union. But as both countries introduced technological improvements into their arsenals, they pursued other strategies, targeting each other's nuclear forces, conventional military forces, industry and leadership. India and Pakistan may include these types of targets in their current military planning. For example, attacking large dams with nuclear weapons could result in massive disruption, economic consequences and casualties. Concentrations of military forces and facilities may provide tempting targets as well.

    Source: NRDC: The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan
     
  17. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    Not really. India has far too many overburdened population clusters without infrastructural amenities. It's not like children (if they go to school that is) are taught about making a bee line for the nearest fall out shelter in case of mass radiation following a detonation as we were in the United States.

    If Pakistan were to launch nuclear weapons the detonations will most probably be atmospheric, not terrestrial in which case mass radiation would be the primary factor. Again, given the non existent infrastructure or organizational education, any mass calamity in India would result in an inordinate amount of deaths (as it always does even with natural calamities).

    Also, given that there is no modern concept of disaster recovery as yet, the burden of the long term morbidity and mortality will be far too great for any semblance of a civilization to remain.

    Pakistan however will most probably be wiped out, third party projections (at least a couple conducted during Clinton's presidency) show the same thing.
     
  18. Sandrocottas

    Sandrocottas Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    This clinton is the same fellow, who behind the closed door,promoted Taliban and created the APHC.

    Outwardly, he shows that he is a nice fellow
     
  19. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,220
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Qsaark bhai, your first point needs to be corrected. Pak doesn't have thermonukes and secondly thermonukes doesn't use uranium or plutonium as the main fuel. It's used in the primary only to intituare a fusion reaction.
     
  20. qsaark

    qsaark Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    2
    Right you are man. Pakistan does not have any thermonuclear devices (commonly called the hydrogen bombs). Thanks for the correction.
     
  21. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,220
    Location:
    BANGalore
    No problemo Q.
     

Share This Page