Search results

advaita, Nobody here is in mad love with a nuclear conflict. Your previous posts are making it look like the world is bent on having a nuclear war, which beyond the boundaries of being ready for such an event, is false. Why we won't have a nuclear war ? - The reasons have already been...

Advaita, I don't know if I'm too sleepy, but I don;t get your point. Avoid what ?

:D So all their strategies are based on the effectiveness of one bluff ? It is working well though. Unfortunately our politicians can't call off the bluff.

The Pakistani PoV, sir. How they intend to play the nuke card despite being aware of the fact that an Indian retaliation can be pure devastation.

Sir, could you also provide a similar insight vis-a-vis Pakistan ?

I assure you, the nuclear weapons in possession are more than sufficient to boil a human body if that's what you mean by "punish enemy with impunity". There has to be an end to this madness. We need to invest in conventional systems, not last-resort payloads.

Nobody is selling national interests mate. You need to read up more on the points that go behind the nuke-deal. Why do we need to test Neutron weapons ?

Lets pay heed to this advice and stop dragging politics into this. There's no ruling party in the universe that wouldn't order a retaliatory strike.

So the purpose of a first strike is to deter the enemy from carrying out a nuclear attack ? Now how are you going to fit in this scenario in an Indo-Pak conflict ? How can we be assured that our first strikes will eliminate all enemy launch platforms ? And why do we even need nukes to...

What according to you, is the purpose of a nuclear strike ?

I don't see any nuclear war coming. I was replying to one of the other posts. It matters when the choice is intelligent. It doesn't matter when the choice is desperate.

Maybe so. You think Pakistani leaders will be willing to sign their own annihilation by ordering the strikes ? I don't. I don't even see a nuclear war coming. I was merely replying to your post. P.S. Be assured. I know the difference between Pakistan and Palestine.

Mumbai will be wiped off the Indian map. As simple as that. In return, Pakistan will be wiped off the Atlas.

Why ? BMs don't have to be nuclear.

The attempt would be to destroy it en-route. If nuclear material is detected, we have our reason to retaliate. But unless we aren't sure that the warhead is nuclear, even if it costs a nuclear strike, I doubt, we'll put forward a nuclear retaliation.

The only other option is a first strike, the cons of which have been discussed throughout the length of this thread. If you disagree with any of the points, so raise your opinion. Highly doubt it. Nukes will just be used as a last resort to keep one side from totally annihilating the other.

You might want to have a look at this. Pakistan admits troops' incursion - World, News - The Independent

Not to mention the boards can maneuver and multiply, while the darts can't.

And so ends a short, fast but meaningful thread. :)

No! Striking their launch pads is not more dependable than ABMs. That way you are assuring a retaliatory nuclear strike on the country. Even if they didn't plan to, our actions with ensure that a nuke comes our way. And no, its not as simple as "What will happen next can be thought. But...