Depends on what you mean by MAD. 60 cities render essentially refugee centres at an estimated 600,000 to a million dead with cholera just around the corner.
Is India willing to pay the price?
I am afraid, not at all. this is where all arguments end when we start to think who is at the disposal. i know there is no magical pill to treat such lesions at this stage for Indians.
That scenario was of two decades ago and doesn't stand. China cannot depend on Pakistan anymore to fight on it's behalf. They got the lesson in Kargil. Perched on the hights the Pskistanis were driven out by IA. Their AF came nowhere near the border as they were scared of losing their crown jewels the F16s.
I would apperciate why you would think so, There has to be a political reason for it. Table it.
It is a tactical issue at that point of time, which they have negated to with new acquisitions.
Just wait till Pakistan get over their civilian jihadi problems; Pakistan as a problem has a strategic problem with physical attributes of the Indian State. They cannot live peacefully with India, as long we control their water.
Point of contnetion here is, At what point or eventuality will the Indian Government go for a first strike? Chinese occupying large parts of India is a reality on a two front war. Whatever one says, it is impossible for the Indian Army to be super human! Heck we dont give them enough tech or the tech in enough numbers, nor do we pay them well.Two front war will have enormous impact on their capacity to keep the fight on.
Oh come on, Adu! THINK! 200 nukes IS NOT a 1st strike arsenal. There's only two 1st strike arsenals on earth and they both have over 10,000 nukes and India ain't one of them.
Sir,
Then, what's the point? I remind you that the Chinese already have 1400 nuclear capable missiles, albeit currently aimed at Taiwan and currently HE armed. I also remind you that their warhead factories are not upto capacity. In two years time, with their stocks already on hand (and about the time to move those missiles from Taiwan to India), they can have about 2000 warheads. India would be lucky to add another 200. So, unless you are stating that such a nuclear war can end ... in India's favour, ... then what's the point?
A bunch of rocks (litterally) would cause the collapse of the Indian state? We're not talking farmland, waterways, or even mineral mines. We're litterally talking a bunch of rocks.
*** sigh *** OK *** Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani nukes are under CIVILIAN control, not military. As such, military rules do not apply to civilians. It is this lack of co-ordination that caused the Chinese (and I suspect the Indians very soon) to give up nukes and go conventional. "No egg head is going to tell a gunner how to shoot his guns."
The figures I've seen says 2000 nukes but do note my timeline, it's 2 years.
Yes and no. Component form warheads are not covered by treaty (diliberately) and while under civilian control (Dept of Energy in the US, Ministry of Atomic Power in Russia), the readied warheads (1000-1700) as per treaty are all under military command.
wrong...! by 2017 all ATVs will be compleated...and before 2020 they will be operational. Now add 2 Akula class SSN from Russia. Total figure will be at least 8.
Nuclear rivals had gone to war without ever resorting to using nukes.
But it increases survival rates to the point that the Chinese would have to use all her arsenal just to take the nukes out ... and leaves nothing for anything else. Pakistan have no chance whatsoever.
The Agreement was that the spent fuel from these reactors will not be monitored but that does not automatically mean it is meant for weapons. Indian reactors still needs fuel from wherever she can get it.
Nukes are expensive and frankly useless on the battlefield. The major powers have abandon the concept of tactical nukes simply because accuracy and conventional warheads (HE, Thermobaric, and submunitions) has duplicated the equivlent effect. Five 500lb bombs dropped on a battalion HQ has more effect than a nuclear mine stopping an advancing column.
