Nuclear MAD Scenario and possible effects in Indo Pak China context
- Thread starter VCheng
- Start date
The threat of nuclear warhead on a surface ship is a flawed strategy. It can trigger an unwanted nuclear exchange . How can Pakistan be sure the Indian ship coming within 350 Km of the shore is not nuclear armed?
All they need to do is fire a Nasr or a Babur into India ? After all according to Musharraf , these weren't designed for Shab e Baraat .
Yes, Unlike Indian bravado and chest thumping, India does not have the capability to "Annihilate Pakistan". They simply don't have enough nuclear warheads to do that. A total of 10-15 Megatons and thats that.
Nasr is a sub Kiloton weapon designed to emit intense neutron pulse rather than any explosion. Neither it is designed for mass killing of civilians or Soldiers nor it can do that. The neutron pulse can penetrate armored vehicle and "Sicken soldiers and disrupt/ Disable equipment enough to stop and armored column attack. Its another thing that RSS morons are ruling India who send nuclear threat ever other day without ever having seen one or understanding anything about them , , so they consider Nasr as WMD
You mean Nasr is actually designed for Shab e Baraat ???! What a pity ?!! Mian , Jung ladne nikle ho ya Holi/ Diwali khelne ??
Yahaan bhi Chini ne chunaa lagaa liya aapko ?
Last edited:
Seriously? Pease show RSS threatening nuclear war. Your defense minister wanted to nuke Israel because of a fake Tweet.
India doesn’t have to nuke entire Pakistan to take revenge. Pindi, Islamabad and Karachi would do fine.
Last edited:
Just because a bomb is small does not mean that it has other strengths compared to big ones. NASR is just a small bomb. There are no neutrons or anything else. It can't penetrate the armor of tanks and may not even kill foot soldiers who aren't close enough to the blast.
RSS aren't morons. No one thinks that Pakistan can simply be nuked out of existence. Nuclear bombs are not all powerful. Only Pakistan has such ideas. May be day dream or serious inferiority complex and desperation to look Macho.
Actually India does have capability to completely annhilate Pakistan. Do you know why?
This is why:
Leaving Karachi; Lahore, Multan, Islamabad, Hyderabad, Faislabad all in this green belt. Do you know what this green belt is? Its lifeline of Pakistan: Indus.
Now consider India commits 40 Nuclear bombs to the destruction of Pakistan. Assuming all Indian weapons are 60 Kt bombs as tested in Pokhran-2. Lets simulate this with NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
Lahore : 1 warhead
Multan : 1 warhead
Islamabad and Rawalpindi : 1 warhead
Karachi: 1 warhead
Almost all of Pakistan's infrastructure will be almost gone with just 10-20 warheads.
Why did this happen? Because Pakistan is very very densely populated. It has lot of area but limited water. Water from Indus is what has shaped Pakistan population. This is why India can destroy Pakistan. The lifeline of Pakistan also hides her death.
BTW, this geo-strategic fact also works in Pakistan's favour. A high speed train system from Islamabad to Karachi can bind the entire country into a very effective economy. Alas, Chinese have not yet provided you with that: but if your leaders have an ounce of wisdom, they will.
Oh I tried playing this game the otherway round.
Bengaluru :
Why did a hell lot of Bengaluru escaped? Because its more widespead.
Delhi:
Same result.
Its simple geographical reality. And this was just a 20 year old un-educated girl trying to work on it. Sure as hell, brilliant war-makers in the halls of south block will have more rabbits in their hats. I guess @vstol Jockey knows more on this.
Infact if I were thinking really devilish I would put some high neutron emitting device and transuranics in Indus. Turn the entire river-bed of Indus radioactive. Sure as hell Pakistan will have lots of issues then.
Attachments
Last edited:
Your not getting the point India will never go nuclear even if you throw abdeel or what ever at it. You throw a stone in shit it will spill over you. There are N number of ways to get Pakistan to its keens. Economic sanctions, cutting of shipping, bombing the entire leadership to kingdom kom, working with international coalition in taking out the launchers even before they are mated while hugging the enemy.
Its a two player game. If Pakistan goes nuclear, you have no other choice. Simple! You cann't always dictate tempo of the war.
BTW, point was to illustrate the capability.
IMHO, bigger strategic blunder is deployment of likes of NASR. Its like steroids, fast and short time gains with long time complete ruin. It helps to keep Indian aggression contained in case of short wars but it cranks up the risk of complete nuclear destruction in case of slighly drawn out war.
How does nuclear or non nuclear bomb matter? What is the difference? If you are waging full scale war, you don't abide by any rules. The definition of war is that there are no rules and every enemy has to be killed or enslaved.
Next, Pakistan can be destroyed completely by diverting Sindhu, Jhelum and Chenab river to India leaving Pakistan with no food supply and killing everyone from starvation.
Economic sanctions etc are just bullshit. Every enemy must be killed or enslaved so that there is no more enemy ever again. Economic sanctions only gives temporary respite but does not reduce enmity. After a few years, enemy will regroup and attack again
Next, Pakistan can be destroyed completely by diverting Sindhu, Jhelum and Chenab river to India leaving Pakistan with no food supply and killing everyone from starvation.
Economic sanctions etc are just bullshit. Every enemy must be killed or enslaved so that there is no more enemy ever again. Economic sanctions only gives temporary respite but does not reduce enmity. After a few years, enemy will regroup and attack again
In my opinion considering present situation sanctions are the only option to dismembering it into smaller unions to make the threat irrelevant.
We are in no position to fight long wars like decades ago. We would start seeing the economy crashing just after the first week. A conflict with Pakistan would only increase our timeline to catch-up with China. On the other hand paks economy is already in shambles. It’s cheaper to go the sanctions way than an armed conflict which will drag us down with them.
Sanctions are ineffective wrt Pakistan. Why? Let see...
Pakistan has a defence budget of 9.5 billion dollars. For it to remain threat at the current level of engagement, all it needs is 9-10 billion dollars a year. Thats all. It is not hard to get this much of money. China can spare this money till the end of time.
So long China feeds around 10 billion dollars, it can be assured full co-operation of Pakistan defence establishment and in turn, whole of Pakistan. The civil government is a sham.
In return, Pakistan is completely open for Chinese to use it as they see fit. If Chinese are wise, which I think they are, they will extract the best Pakistan has to offer in terms of resources and man-power to off-load some of their own grunt work. Like low-end manufacturing and basic services. Chinese have just gained one more province. A nuclear armed one to boot. Also, a province where they don't have support the local populace. A province which will be growing in young population while rest of China greys in 30-40 years. So, they are not losing money while they keep us busy. Its a pearl in the string but a different kind of pearl.
Now any sanctions India or west applies will be rendered ineffective so long defence foundations keep on getting their money from China. The ones that will suffer are the local manufacturers and traders. But then, Chinese are going to destroy them anyways as they cannot compete with Chinese excess production and efficiency.
Last edited:
I think you don't understand the importance of oil. The problem with today's economy is that most of it are wasteful goods meant for making people lazy. Even if this economy tanks, it will not change end result.
The main problem is oil import and oil trade which will take a hit. Since oil is non renewable, it is better to make the maximum use of oil before it runs out and create long term infrastructure and asset for the future.
If we don't care for oil or if things turn bad, we are fully capable of waging war for decades
The main problem is oil import and oil trade which will take a hit. Since oil is non renewable, it is better to make the maximum use of oil before it runs out and create long term infrastructure and asset for the future.
If we don't care for oil or if things turn bad, we are fully capable of waging war for decades
You are a fanatic.
Clausewitz defined war as a way to force the enemy to comply to our will, and the continuation of diplomacy through other means, rather than an alternative to it. The idea of a war of annihilation is something extremely new and modern, inherited from fascist thought which defined war as the natural, permanent state of mankind.
War is about forcibly obtaining de facto control over a territory. No more, no less. It can be tactically more advantageous to force the enemy to retreat rather than to attempt to kill them all, as the latter requires investing more resources to pursue them and may result in falling into a trap prepared by the enemy...
You should read more about Nuclear weapons. Anything below 10 Kiloton yield is in effect a neutron bomb or a neutron flux / pulse devise as most of its energy is consumed in releasing high energy neutrons instead of creating a blast by heat via nuclear reaction.
Nasr warhead is only 30-35 Cm wide and less than 90 Kilos in weight. A small plutonium core with secondary stage of Deuterium.
You can do your own research what will happen to such a device.