Then I have nothing to add except wishing you good luck.Now you are talking about something else entirely. The argument already takes into consideration that it is worth it.
Nope, I'm an advocate of "clean" airbursts and oppose the over-hype of the scale of physical destruction caused by nuclear detonations.Told ya, it's got nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. Are you one of those who think a 15kt bomb will take out an entire metro city? Cheers.
However, I do think that if a metro loses 5% of its inhabitants over a period of a few days with additional 10% injured...during a nuclear war...with other metros facing the same events...I do think that they are effectively "taken out". If you want to call this kind of a war as something you've won, then I only have congratulations for you.
No, its irrelevant because nuclear arms-reduction treaties between two nuclear giants with simply too many nukes, have nothing to do with Pakistan's arsenal and how it doesn't have enough (as you said). I'd recommend not going off on tangents.Of course it's "irrelevant". It doesn't suit your argument.
Too bad you didn't check the casualties check box there. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties per metropolis per dispersed detonation is nothing to you. Unfortunately (rather fortunately), for the Indian leadership thats not the case.
Rrrriiiight. Whatever helps you sleep.Point is we didn't need to escalate anymore.
Its not propaganda at all, Pakistani TNWs serve to deter Cold-Start style attacks, but not by nuking armored columns. Pakistan just prefers to effectively communicate some of its red lines, to ensure deterrence.The entire propaganda gambit from Pakistan is about stopping India's Cold Start with tac nukes. I am very well aware that Pak generals know the ground reality.
What you call TNWs, may not be what we call TNWs. Dunno if you want to say a 1mt nuke would qualify as a TNW if it's used against a C&C center hidden in the hills, away from civilian population.
Which C&C on Pakistani soil do you want to destroy with a 1MT nuke? Besides, anything that big against a CF target (meaning ground detonation) will have fallout affecting population across borders. Anyhow, just for the sake of the argument, I'd still consider a ~100kT nuke against a hardened target a TNW. Anything bigger might have too much of a fallout.
It seems I have a thing for being misunderstood...Something worth looking at. From someone who's job was this topic.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are totally different cases. The people were not aware of the effects of nuclear weapons, nor were they aware such a weapons had been developed.RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES By Col Dr Narendar Singh, Ph D The recent hype in media for review and restructuring of Indian Army and the nuclearization of South Asia has brought in focus the Role of Ground Forces in future operations. The massive weaponization programme of Pakistan especially in...www.strategicfront.org
Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing (the rebound of blast wave from hills) effect which would considerably increase the blast damage." No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.
When the air raid alarm went the Japanese were heading for their offices and were on street. Those who looked up amd saw a bright flash. Those who saw it got their eyes affected, the maximum casualties on the street were secondary injuries due to the rubble which went up. The city being industrial areas had large number of sheds with sheets on top, these got removed or pulled up and when these came crashing down caused injuries.
There was a hospital at 600meters from ground zero. When the air raid alarm went some of the doctors and nurses took shelter. These people were safe. The buildings glass and other attachments were shattred and all who came in direct line got affected, those patients who were lying in shadow of walls were safe.
The doctors and nurse not aware of the induced radiation came out of shelters and absorbed secondary radiations. The fire which razed was more of secondary fire due combustible material used in structures.
The deaths and other casualties are secondary casualties. These could have been avoided if the people had knowledge. If interested read Glasstone.
The area struck with nuclear weapons can be occupied after 48 to 72h depending on the salt content of the soil. It is half life formula.RELOOK AT THE GROUND FORCES By Col Dr Narendar Singh, Ph D The recent hype in media for review and restructuring of Indian Army and the nuclearization of South Asia has brought in focus the Role of Ground Forces in future operations. The massive weaponization programme of Pakistan especially in...www.strategicfront.org
In lighter vein, if bomb drops at Vijay ChowkBut what makes you think that Pak will nuke India? Pnjabis are the most coward people in India or Pakistan. Will they accept complete destruction? Tell me one major battle for India fought in Punjab ever? I don't know about whether they are cowards or not, but there is a high probability of...www.strategicfront.org
a. Nothing will happen to structures constructed prior to 1947. North Block South Block totally safe.
2. All structures constructed post independence within 1000 m will crumple, constructed by PWD and MES. Cut was there.
3. People will throng to see the damage.
4. lots of selfies
Now on actual affect. Very little damage in Delhi. It is well dispersed city. Yes destruction will take place and we may have thousands of casualties. But the main problem will be the people who will come to see and take selfie. They will suffer from secondary injuries. We Indians never follow rules hence the damage.
Let's just say you are more interested in propaganda than an actual discussion for the discovery of truth.
I do recommend reading Glasstone.
Well if it takes 6 years to reply disproportionately, you might wanna go over how nuclear retaliation works. Drop the hyperbole and stop shooting off tangents.Last time they did this mistake it was '71. Didn't pan out well. Indian philosophy of giving no damns day in and day out but breaking back when it does works well.
They thought that India can never drop 370 too. Happened. Demographics change, on the way. For all we know next is Indus Water Treaty. I guess then they will learn. Or may be when India does a decapitation strike.
Biggest problem for India will be to do a proportionate reply. There is no proportionate weapon in India's armory.
For crying out loud, Pakistan has been openly supporting militancy in a territory that's completely under Indian control, for 30+ years. Dropping 370 & demographic changes in such a territory is a disproportionate response? Good grief...
Lets agree to disagree on if there are proportionate weapons in India's inventory.