India and Pakistan, my far fetched theory

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Ok, the two countries go to war. This war would at least partially solve 3 of the world's largest problems. Let's say they use their full nuclear arsenals, which is 70+ nukes. Kashmir is then mostly uninhabitable because this is where most of the fighting took place; problem 1 solved. The Indian and Pakistani armies are severely weakened. It is said that 70 milion people could die from these nukes. Many Taliban and al-Qaida are killed in Pakistan by the Indian nukes; problem 2, mostly solved. The fallout causes the global temperature to slightly decrease therefore countering the effects of global warming; problem 3 solved.



Flame away.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>Ok, the two countries go to war. This war would at least partially solve 3 of the world's largest problems. Let's say they use their full nuclear arsenals, which is 70+ nukes. Kashmir is then mostly uninhabitable because this is where most of the fighting took place; problem 1 solved. The Indian and Pakistani armies are severely weakened. It is said that 70 milion people could die from these nukes. Many Taliban and al-Qaida are killed in Pakistan by the Indian nukes; problem 2, mostly solved. The fallout causes the global temperature to slightly decrease therefore countering the effects of global warming; problem 3 solved.



    Flame away.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    if there is nukes there would be much more than 70 millions of death, pakistan and India together have more than 1 billions people. Your number of casualties are underestimated.

    Al quaeda is everywhere so it is not ready to die so easily.

    the fallout will cause a major disaster on earth. Considering that the tchernobyl disaster was cause of many cancers (thyroid ) , a nuke will cause an incredible amount of cancers all around the world. China will suffer massive damage and have food problems : what will be their reactions ? : an incomensurate number of problems will appear.



    anyway, if you think that your struggle against Al Quaeda worth 70 000 000 innocents victims, it's your choice. I wish that somebody from India or Pakistan will appreciate your post .



    Your theory that the fallout with solve a major problem is a joke (the nuclear winter) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> , it remind me a lame coment of a MD announcing the death of one his patient, he die but he was cure. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 40
    digixdigix Posts: 109member
    ?And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet? Matthew 24:6





    - Problem 1: Conflicts in Kashmir



    Well... Temporary, the place would be inhabitable. So yes, the conflicts in that area would be mostly gone along with the ones who done the fighting in that are.



    But the chances are, the people who are responsible for the conflicts in that area would start another conflict in another area. Where? Could be Korea and Japan (the World Cup could be a dangerous event), Alaska and the United States (Free Alaska movement?), Hawaii and the United States (Free Hawaii movement?), France and the Great Brittain (detonation of a bomb in the Chunnel?), etc.



    - Problem 2: Taliban and Al-Qaida



    Well... If you are trying to get Taliban and Al-Qaida because they're trouble maker, I guess problem is solved partly.



    But if you are trying to get the people who are responsible for 11th September 2001, you are aftering the wrong targets. They're just decoys, nothing more but tools to detract from the true people who are respobsible.



    Anyway. Like powerdoc said it, the Al-Qaida network is everywhere (like for example, the ?Gerakan Aceh Merdeka? / ?Free Aceh Movement? in Indonesia, who is also part of Al-Qaida). So... the destruction of the area in India and Pakistan won't do much damage to the Al-Qaida network.



    It's like saying that to get rid of the Jews in the world, one should nuke Israel. Well... It would be impossible, since that Jews are everywhere in the whole world. And that even eliminating the Jews would get us nowhere. Since that only some of the Jews are responsible for the problems in the world (but don't be mistaken, Nazi is indeed a Zion movement), and even some of those Jews people are only tools used by the people who are responsible for the troubles in the world.



    Who are our real enemies? They are currently hiding, using some of us as puppets, to make us fight against each other.



    - Problem 3: Global warming



    Contrary to what you have been told, human actions don't cause much global impact on the earth (either atomsphere or land).



    So... Global warming, NOT because of the humans, it's just the earth adjusting its temperature.



    Global cooling due human's nuclear weapons fallout, impossible.
  • Reply 3 of 40
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    You're actually trying to put a positive spin on a nuclear war?



    Do you even know why most people over there aren't concerned about this? They have NO IDEA what a nuclear weapon does. They think that it is a normal bomb with a bigger boom. They know nothing of its destructive power and its devastating effects it would have on their region for generations.



    First of all, remember that we actually have no idea what would happen if 70 nukes went off in one region of the world. It has never happened before. We don't know how much fallout that would produce, or any of the other effects it might have.



    Secondly, remember who is going to have to pick up this mess once it's over- that's right, it would be us. We'd have to provide medical attention to all of those people who survive (and imagine the horrible lives they would face after that), we'd have to try and help with the 'cleanup' (but I don't know how you could), and we'd have to help with the all of the other crises that would pop up after such a nuclear war, including feeding, clothing, and providing shelter to the refugees of the area. Children will be born with major defects, disease will increase, and if you thought September 11 changed the world forever, it would be nothing compared to this.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    The amount of fallout from a nuclear strike is greatly influenced by whether it's a ground or air burst. A ground burst throws huge quantities of radioactive soil into the atmosphere. An air burst does not.



    Because an air burst is a more efficient way to spread the energy from a nuclear blast around, U.S. doctrine normally calls for air bursts, not ground bursts. The weapon used at Hiroshima, for example, was detonated at roughly 600 meters above ground level.



    The nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both air bursts. Radioactive fallout was minimal and the cities were reinhabited/rebuilt within several years. There where/are still long terms effects from these two blasts, but extensive contamination is not one of them.



    The targeting doctrine and capabilities of India and Pakistan are still murky. The Pentagon analysis on this topic that was reported by the New York Times (May 27, p5), among others, assumed ground bursts. But that's just an assumption. And a questionable one in my opinion.



    Having said that I don't intend to minimize the horrific effetcs of a nuclear exchange between Indian and Pakistan. But it won't end the world as we know it either.



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 40
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I'm surprised one of your positive spins wasn't a super race of humans would evolve (by mutation) and lead us to a utopian society.



    If this conflict ends in a nuke attack, one of 2 things would happen:



    1. other countries will develop or beef up on their nuke warheads.



    2. other countries will see the devistating effects and disarm themselves of nukes.



    Now what do you think is more likely, 1 or 2? (Hint: 1!!!)
  • Reply 6 of 40
    roonsterroonster Posts: 57member
    Isn't there a kind of nuclear weapon that creates very little radiation and leaves the buildings standing?



    I seem to remember that they were designed to be used on strategic targets (cities, industrial areas) that could then be repopulated quickly.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    roonsterroonster Posts: 57member
    Isn't there a kind of nuclear weapon that creates very little radiation and leaves the buildings standing?



    I seem to remember that they were designed to be used on strategic targets (cities, industrial areas) that could then be repopulated quickly.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Yeah, those are neutron bombs, but you can bet that neither India, nor Pakistan have those.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    India has stated publically that it will has a policy against first use of nuclear weapons. India can afford to do this since it is a country technologically, logistically, militarily and strategically far ahead of Pakistan. India has missles that can reach Japan, while Pakistan can barely reach Sri Lanka. Of the three wars fought between India and Pakistan, India won all three.



    Pakistan has stated it has no policy against first use. If there is a nuclear strike, Pakistan will be the country of first use, probably when it sees that defeat is imminent. It is estimated that Pakistan has no more than half a dozen kiloton-level devices capable of reaching India, while India many times that amount. There are also rumors that India has a primitive missle defense system in development, but nobody knows much on it.



    Pakistan really is the loser here. There is no way it can win a conflict, even it it threatens with nukes. India has far too great a population and many of its business centers, located in southern and eastern India, are probably out of reliable reach of Pakistan missles.



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 40
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    Agreed Nostradamus
  • Reply 11 of 40
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    Let's just hope everyone knows how to <a href="http://ftp.archive.org/movies/divx/19069.avi"; target="_blank">Duck and Cover</a> (Divx format). No, I'm not that old!



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 40
    Neutron bombs work by expelling huge amounts of gamma and neutron radiation. This radiation is able to readily penetrate structures and armored vehicles. Heat and blast effects are minimal. Thus the popular idea of killing people but not buildings. The U.S. government liked the idea because you could, in theory, stop a Soviet armored offensive in Germany without obliterating all of Germany in the process.



    And because neutron bombs do not create large amounts of contaminated soil, the residual radiactive contamination is minimal.



    The U.S. did build neutron warheads for tactical use (during the Reagan administration), but I believe that these are all out of the inventory. I also believe that Russia, China, and Israel have neutron bombs.



    If you're interested in citations please let me know.



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 40
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Nostradamus writes:



    [quote]Pakistan has stated it has no policy against first use. If there is a nuclear strike, Pakistan will be the country of first use, probably when it sees that defeat is imminent. <hr></blockquote>



    No. Musharaff himself said that "if a war begins it will be India that attacks us". He just said the other day that Pakistan will not strike first.



    I also don't think we are going to let him use nukes. He has become a US puppet (which is fine with me, actually). Notice that since 9/11 he started wearing civilian clothes? It is all a PR thing. I also believe we orchestrated his semi-legitmate election last month. He is ours, and I don't think he will use a nuke unless he is stricken with one first.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    He said that Pakistan wouldn't launch the war, but if they do fight, they will be the ones to launch nukes first.



    Who knows how these things start, who fires the first shot? We don't know.



    There could be a group of fighters from either country who rush the enemy and start the moving of armies across borders. If India is provoked by Pakistan and crosses the border, I think that the Pakistani government will panic and push the button.



    That of course is the nightmare scenario, but the situation is VERY bad and I think that there could be a nuclear war any day now.
  • Reply 15 of 40
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    THey have been exchanging 'shots' for over two weeks, artillery and gun fire.... the number of dead and wounded is over two hundred.



    what will most likely happen, if something starts, will be that a stupid as$ militant Islamic group will massacre a bunch of people . . . as they actually worship the idea of many deaths seeing as it means many martyrs in heaven and manu infidels in hell . . . also, they understand that India is surrounded by Islamic nations (except China) that will see beyond their nationhood and into their shared religionhood should India wollop Pakistan.



    Clearly this would be a war that would escallate and perhaps spark a world wide reaction and WW3.



    now, as for G4dude: you are more than a pathetic idiot . . . if you can only equate millions dead with you idea of three minor benefits

    Is it because the people that would die are of a different color, or are a different religion or are poor that allows you to completely ignore their humanity and say such absolutely stupid things as 'well they're death solves problems" You exhibit a truly ugly sense of isolation and ignorance . . . and I'm surprised that no-one has said anything yet . . . I can only think of the word shame . . . you should see that word, meditate on it and know what it feels like because you should be ashamed for such callus thinking . .



    .your life is by no means more important or worthy than any one of the millions of people that would die in such a stupid pointless war. . .nor are your little ideas of problems that need solving.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    There is no way to predict what such an exchange would bring. Or how it could affect people not involved ( the rest of us ).



    I stated on another thread that war is obsolete. That means that it no longer serves a useful purpose to ether side. Ultimately there can be no winner.

    Unfortunately there are still people out there crazy enough to try it.



    As for the person who suggests that humans have no affect on the climate of this planet. That's been proven in triplicate over the last few years. Get your head out of the sand. Nuclear winter is a very REAL possiblity. As a matter of fact earths temp has been affected many times before by natural disasters. This is just the first time in history we have become powerful enough to do it ourselves.



    You want a positive spin on a nuclear exchange? Well, once people see the amount of devistation perhaps they will be moved into never doing it again ( as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't enough ). This is of course assuming we remain untouched by this.



    The mentality behind this is truely nuts. " I hate you so much I'm willing to kill myself ( and all my fathers, mothers, and children ) just to kill you. "



    Where's the sense in that?



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 40
    Ultimately nobody wins in a nuclear exchange particularly a full one. Millions will die and as several have stated it would likely escalate from there, envolving more and more countries and groups. I also think Pakistan has little chance of the upper hand especially with their technology and population numbers. IMHO it is a stupid gesture on both sides, they need a new way to bolster their egos, that's prettymuch what it comes down to.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Just for some comparison:



    The nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the explosive force equivalent to 12 kilotons of TNT. Most nuclear weapons in existence today have a destructive capacity of greater than 1 megaton of TNT, with the US and Russia reportedly possessing warheads equivalent to 60 megatons of TNT.



    Now, let's be conservative and multiply 1 megaton by 70 weapons (as was estimated by G4Dude to start this thread), and you have a destructive force that is approximately 6,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (based on my conservative estimate).



    Now, these bombs would not be dropped only on Kashmir. Pakistan's recent missile tests have demonstrated that they are capable of launching a strike into the heart of India. India is likely capable of hitting Islamabad and other Pakistani urban centers. The potential casualties in the immediate region quickly increase to close to a Billion people.



    It wouldn't stop there. China and Russia are both very close to Kashmir in specific and India/Pakistan in general. The radiation from a nuclear explosion could spread to these countries, resulting in retaliatory attacks from these nuclear powers. This scenario leads to US involvement. With this, we've quickly gone from G4Dude's initial 70 million estimate to a death toll of a billion in the immediate region and the end of the world in a broader scale.



    What's the conclusion of all of this: Under no circumstances whatsoever is nuclear war good or justifiable. I am appalled that someone would even suggest such a solution.



    Edit: There's a reason why deterrence is referred to as "Mutually Assured Destruction"



    [ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 40
    spaceman_spiffspaceman_spiff Posts: 1,242member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>

    ...If this conflict ends in a nuke attack, one of 2 things would happen:



    1. other countries will develop or beef up on their nuke warheads.



    2. other countries will see the devistating effects and disarm themselves of nukes.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Or 3. increased interest in the development of missile defense.



    (not trying to put a positive spin on this)
  • Reply 20 of 40
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    A modest <a href="http://www.thebrainstrust.co.uk/article.35.2375.html"; target="_blank">peace plan</a>.
Sign In or Register to comment.