Search results

Actually India is already doing a lot to counter china. But there is only so much the government can do. The people need to boycott chinese products without a fuss, that will hurt chinese economy in a major way. GOI can't officially block chinese products and wage a trade war.

Yes but china isn't reckless like pakis to use nukes on us. They will however wage a conventional war with India if need be.

That's my point. Taking care of pakistan is easy. A preemptive strike with 200 to 300 brahmos and 50 to 100 ballistic missiles hitting their strategic bases / military bases / air bases / nasr & other missile launch pads / nuclear launch pads simultaneously will effectively paralyze their...

Nukes cause surface damage only, not underground. For that you need bunker busters. Army divisions can be taken care of using ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. Window is a matter of perspective. Firing a salvo of brahmos with conventional warheads at the same time will ensure...

India doesn't need nukes to take out paki nukes.

If attacked with a nuke, definitely.

If you think that a low yield nuke can reach US fleet, why not DF-21? Instead of using a nuke for an EMP burst, why not use DF-21 directly and sink the carrier in the first hit? Here's the thing. Its not that simple. US fleet can see missiles coming from miles away. US fleet is armed to the...

Unless china intends to follow up with an attack to sink the aircraft carrier, this EMP would be of no use. As no EMP can disable electronic equipment permanently. Aircraft carrier will be up and running in a few hours. China has 2 options, keep hitting with EMP bursts till US fleet retreats or...

That's what mass media does to you. You lose objective & critical thinking abilities after watching and listening the same thing over and over again. Its like how the north koreans believe that Kim Jong Un does not have any lower body holes, he does not shit or piss because he works so hard...

Why would you want to use a nuke for EMP? Doesn't make any sense. If you want to completely destroy & sink the fleet, drop a nuke directly on the fleet itself. Just for crippling the fleet with a nuclearised EMP won't work as the EMP will shut down the systems only for a few hours. After that...

That's the thing about nukes, you can take down a massive enemy with just half a dozen nukes targeting their cities and hence crippling their economy. After that, even if they win the war, its meaning less.

Understood. We're not saying that nuking a city is perfectly alright. It has consequences of course. Larger blast radius, shock waves reaching miles away, radiation etc. leads to larger causalties, effective destruction of infrastructure in a limited area, wiping out communication in the...

If you ask me, all this propaganda is made to protect powerful nations like USA & Russia. Since a country with far less conventional power can effectively take out a country with far larger conventional force with a few nukes, WMDs are discouraged world wide. By removing nukes from the...

Why doesn't pakistanis realise how illogical and ignorant it sounds when they talk about conventional forces balance? Looking at the sheer geography, and multiple threats, India has to have a greater conventional force than Pakistan. Just because of their fears, we can't reduce our forces.

What BS.......!!!!!!!! The USA & Russia conducted thousands of tests back to back during the cold war. In Nevada itself more than a thousand nukes were detonated. Where is the damage to Ozone layer? Where is the fall out? Where is the starvation? These are all just scare tactics.

It is also important to restrict them economically. With the chinese coming in and bailing them out in every industry, that area looks weak now.

Pakistan calls for nuclear restraint, conventional forces balance for South Asia peace Look who's shitting their pants now that rumors are coming in about India thinking of rejecting no first use policy. Funny thing is, a country which refuses to sign the no first use policy is asking for...