Nuclear MAD Scenario and possible effects in Indo Pak China context

[Kshithij Sharma]

Sir.

Your ignorance of matter and the subject, selective posting and inability to comprehend the title of MAD, is amusing and yet I find myself wasting time as such tripe, if left unchallenged, will give an impression that Nuclear Warheads are harmless and also the mainstreaming of stupidity that the 'radiation' hazard is a fiction.

Please do elucidate on the presence of alpha and beta particles emitted by Depleted Uranium? It is rather hilarious to note that you are negating a cumulative effect of multiple rounds being fired in a battle. (in tens of hundreds)

Are you assuming a single round engagement? If you do not know the presence of alpha and beta particles and gamma emissions by DU, I would urge you to recuse your self and stop posting further.

Reading books is one thing, I can quote the Glasstone. Just for you. So that you can stop with the blather.

Depleted Uranium: 4. Does depleted uranium pose a radiation hazard?

PS: Please research why 5 Grey is the maximum permissible dose in a year in the field of medicine. Your own claim that Radiation is a lie - ask the Doctors here @Sathya is one.

Radiation is not a lie. But, it is not carried over generation. This is a lie. Radiation causes cancer, not genetic malformations for generations. In war, there are much more dangerous things - disease, lack of medicine, chemicals, famine etc. Radiation is just one part of the risk.

The thing that makes people fear - genetic malformations over generations instead of suffering ending with the current generation- is a damn lie.

Depleted uranium is extremely toxic but not radioactive. Toxicity is different from radioactivity. Your article also says the similar thing - DU causes problems only if inhaled or consumed. But it is due to toxicity and not alpha emissions. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion years and that of U235 is 700 million years. It is foolish to say such elements will be radioactive on their own

Depleted uranium has only 1 main components - U238. It is called depleted Uranium because all the important element is extracted and the remaining is used as ammunition instead of throwing away as a waste. Since U238 is not fissile, generally it is not useful in any way and hence used as ammunition.

If depleted Uranium was radioactive, then the soldiers who carry the ammunition in their backpacks and guns, in tank storage or handle them regularly are the ones who will suffer the most.

Mutually assured destruction is a hoax. The real reason was that people didn't want another war without any concrete objective. The natural resources extraction had created a temporary high standard of living. People didn't want to give it up and suffer again in another war which had little significance.

Nuclear armed states conduct warfare by other means, mainly economic. Direct attacks are so passé.

First question - which country are you from?

Secondly, what is economic war? How is it waged? Why does it matter? Why wasn't it waged in the past?

Economic attack is just cutting off supplies of natural resources. It works only if the country lacks access to critical resources and has no allies to give them. For example, Iran lacks food. But, it doesn't apply to countries like Russia which is swlf sufficient. Same way, Pakistan has support from oily Arabs.

North Korea is also immune as it has its own resources of coal, minerals etc. Even oil can be obtained by coal liquefaction. But, countries like Japan or South Korea can be hit hard due their lack of resources.

Economic sanctions don't work towards those who prefer their independence to luxurious life

 

[randomradio]

Sir.

There are two facets to be considered here. The Acute Radiational Hazards and the Delayed Radiational Hazard. What you have done is to generalise the two. For the first: the thumb rule is that anyone over 150 cGy of radiation exposure as read by individual dosimeter and by the CBRN CDC personnel, will be triaged to a lower category as opposed to the rule of Triage as followed in the conventional scene.

The priority will be to evacuate those who can be saved. The present medical support capability required in a post-decontamination scenario near to 'ground zero' does not present with a capability to ensure survivability without a dedicated and specialized tertiary care center and even they shall be overwhelmed in a single strike due to the number of centers/number of beds being a factor. And here we are talking about the validity of Concept of MAD.

While you all have gone into sub-atomic effects of theoretical nature, I would urge you to head back and read carefully: cumulative has been a word used by me.


The latter is based on laboratory models that have indicated microsatellite deletions leading to change in reading frame in Genetic Sequences thereby increasing the probability of Genetic Diseases over successive generations due to stable mutations being transmitted in the germ lines. That is an ongoing cohort. Please study the cohorts established in aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima which are ongoing and still far from done. The day they have shut shop, let me know and give a definitive pontification as above.

Again I reiterate, we are talking of MAD and the war. You seem to be assuming a single device. What will it take to make you all understand that there is no single strike? Is it a difficult preposition to accept?

I was talking about people who are well outside the blast zone. Whether it is a single strike or multiple strikes, the people within the blast zone are beyond saving anyway, and radiation is the least of their problems, we are still talking about millions of people for Indian cities. And I agree that care centers will be overwhelmed, but primarily due to burn victims, not due to radiation overdose. The probability of 50% 2nd degree burns is very high well outside the fallout zone. Since the probability of an air burst is highly likely, the fallout will be at its lowest.

Are we talking in the Indo-Pak context or Russia-US? In the Indo-Pak context, I doubt Pak has the weapons necessary to do the kind of lasting damage for MAD. Especially if most of their weapons are used on military targets. Then there's counter force strikes, failure of the delivery system, failure of explosion etc. The quality of BMD is also increasing.

The latter is based on laboratory models that have indicated microsatellite deletions leading to change in reading frame in Genetic Sequences thereby increasing the probability of Genetic Diseases over successive generations due to stable mutations being transmitted in the germ lines. That is an ongoing cohort. Please study the cohorts established in aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima which are ongoing and still far from done. The day they have shut shop, let me know and give a definitive pontification as above.

It's practically impossible to quantify these aspects. The cancer rate in a developing country would be higher than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So why don't we compare the data from the cohorts with developing countries after it's all done. I bet if you are a smoker, then the possibility of your child carrying genetic disorders is much greater than if the parents were exposed to fallout outside the blast zone. Gene therapy could become common in curing adverse effects when you are a baby.

Let's not forget that the human body is also capable of healing from nominal radiation sickness.

Long-term epidemiological studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: study populations, dosimetry and summary of health effects. - PubMed - NCBI

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation succeeded 28 years' worth of activities of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission on long-term epidemiological studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There has been no evidence of genetic effects in the survivors' children, including cancer and other multi-factorial diseases.

If the children were not affected, then the grand children could be even better off, not worse. These individuals are more affected by smoking than fallout.

Can a nuclear weapon kill? Oh, yes, millions of casualties in a major Indian city with only a single strike. But is the fallout itself dangerous? No, it's not.

 

[randomradio]

Mutually assured destruction is a hoax.

MAD is real. The scale is subjective.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

MAD is real. The scale is subjective.

Yes, mutually assured annihilation is hoax. But, this is what one means. It is obvious that war will bring destruction and losses. MAD is about complete destruction

 

[CountryFirst]

The effect of radition is one of the biggest lies spread around by nuke powers. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both are vibrant cities for last over 70 years. The effect of a blast on ground is contained in a very small area while the blast in air above a height of one kilometer has minimum radiation fallouts with the entire area becoming safe for human population within 15 days.

Why do they spread the lie?? To keep power in UN, to control the world, to prevent testing by others?

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

no

i am not at all on conventional war .................. who will or who will not only a war will tell

we may be strong compared to pak but even they do have some areas to be better than us.

u may push a dog to a wall .... but even he can still take a bite at u

i only was referring to nuke tipped Pinaka & how practical it's going to be

using nuke will be of course or should be the very very last resort

with this as reference .....i said that pak will use nuke to stop our advance

Nuclear effect videos:
5Men directly under 2kT bomb at 3km.

Chinese exposed to nuclear radiation:

Pigs survive direct Hydrogen bomb strike:

Testing of nuclear bombs on animals:

Nuclear test on monkeys:

Why simply make foolish assumptions that nuclear bomb will destroy everything? Who told you that 6-8 nukes will destroy Pakistan? It will need at least 5000 nuclear bombs to destroy military bases and cause large destruction on the cities of Pakistan. Even then ground invasion will be needed

 

[Bon Plan]

Nuclear effect videos:
5Men directly under 2kT bomb at 3km.

Chinese exposed to nuclear radiation:

Pigs survive direct Hydrogen bomb strike:

Testing of nuclear bombs on animals:

Nuclear test on monkeys:

Why simply make foolish assumptions that nuclear bomb will destroy everything? Who told you that 6-8 nukes will destroy Pakistan? It will need at least 5000 nuclear bombs to destroy military bases and cause large destruction on the cities of Pakistan. Even then ground invasion will be needed

5000 nuclear bombs not enough to destroy Pak ?
1) there is a difference between a tactical warhead (saying 10kt) and a strategical one (saying 1 Mt)
2) 6 or 6 nukes not enough, for sure. 50 strategical ones will totally paralised the whole country. It's not necessary to nuke 100% of the land to erase a country.

 

[A Person]

Why simply make foolish assumptions that nuclear bomb will destroy everything? Who told you that 6-8 nukes will destroy Pakistan? It will need at least 5000 nuclear bombs to destroy military bases and cause large destruction on the cities of Pakistan.

You're demented.

Fortunately, India doesn't have anywhere near that many nukes. In fact, only USA and Russia have thousands of nuclear warheads, all other countries have a few hundreds at best.

 

[Shashank]

5000 nuclear bombs not enough to destroy Pak ?
1) there is a difference between a tactical warhead (saying 10kt) and a strategical one (saying 1 Mt)
2) 6 or 6 nukes not enough, for sure. 50 strategical ones will totally paralised the whole country. It's not necessary to nuke 100% of the land to erase a country.

If we really want to cripple pakistan we should bike their water bodies upstream and slowly whole country will die painful death.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

5000 nuclear bombs not enough to destroy Pak ?
1) there is a difference between a tactical warhead (saying 10kt) and a strategical one (saying 1 Mt)
2) 6 or 6 nukes not enough, for sure. 50 strategical ones will totally paralised the whole country. It's not necessary to nuke 100% of the land to erase a country.

The nuclear bomb mainly uses heat and blast wave to cause destruction. The radiation is only minimal as life threatening radiation happens only in close areas. Most of deaths in Japan happened because of burns and debris. I fact, the firebombing of Tokyo killed twice the number of people in 1 night compared to atom bomb. Japan was built of wood and it was easy to burn the houses. So, the casualty was higher. But, today, due to overpopulation, most houses in india and pakistan is made of cement or mud and hence the effect of nukes will be much lower.

I posted the videos to show the real power of nucler bombs. Many of the bombs were thermonuclear ones of megaton range in the videos. Nuclear bomb will be similar to massive hurricane like we saw in USA in 2017 like IRMA but much smaller in size. If mankind can survive such hurricanes, the nuclear blast wave shouldn't be a big deal

If we really want to cripple pakistan we should bike their water bodies upstream and slowly whole country will die painful death.

Pakistan will start a war if that happens. Why should India risk that? It is better to strike than use passive aggression like this.

You're demented.

Fortunately, India doesn't have anywhere near that many nukes. In fact, only USA and Russia have thousands of nuclear warheads, all other countries have a few hundreds at best.

This is another retarded pie chart. Atomic bomb needs 4kg of plutonium. A boosted fission bomb needs 6kg plutonium with tritium in the middle while thermonuclear bomb needs the boosted bomb as primary and a secondary made of deuterium with Uranium tamper. The yield can be varied by changing the tamper from depleted Uranium to highly enriched Uranium without varying the size and weight of thermonuclear bomb.

Assuming that India wants to increase the number of warheads instead of concentrating maximum power in one warhead, India simply needs 6kg plutonium and rest depleted uranium. So, by what logic does India have just 100 bombs? India runs nuclear powerplant in PHWR reactors with the sole intention of getting plutonium. India already has several tons of plutonium. Depleted Uranium is a waste product and easily available too.

India has 2000 nukes already, if not more. Pakistan also has more than 120 nukes. It is about 300-400.

 

[A Person]

If India were to unleash thousands of nukes on Pakistan, the rest of the world would retaliate against India. You have no idea what you're talking about, and I hope saner minds are in charge of India's stockpiles.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

If India were to unleash thousands of nukes on Pakistan, the rest of the world would retaliate against India. You have no idea what you're talking about, and I hope saner minds are in charge of India's stockpiles.

Why would any part of the world unleash nuclear bombs on India to save Pakistan? Why would they risk themselves getting hit by nukes too? It is you who have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing that will happen is that oil supply will be cut off to India and Indians will suffer while others make merry. Only if India attacks the oil supply route to other countries, will other countries get angry. Pakistan has no connectivity with the world. Pakistan export is negligible and the technology is pathetic. Pakistan has nothing to offer to anyone except Arabs - whom they offer military assistance (like Islamic Military Alliance).

As I said repeatedly, nukes will not destroy everything. Even 5000s not enough. There is simply no substitution for ground invasion. In WW2, millions of bombs were dropped, chemical weapons used, Napalms used to burn cities and so on but still just 8-10 crore people died. This shows how difficult warfare really is. Simply shouting nuclear bomb everyday makes no sense. Nukes are just a small part and only destroys civilian structures. Just look at the videos I posted.

 

[A Person]

In WW2, only two nuclear bombs were dropped; and they extremely weak by modern nuclear weapon standards.

Regardless of quantitative effects, there's a qualitative effect too. If you were to start using them like conventional weapons, you would brand your nation as a psychopathic one that, for the good of mankind, cannot be allowed to remain in existence.

 

[Bharath]

India has 2000 nukes already, if not more. Pakistan also has more than 120 nukes. It is about 300-400.

source?- or is this just an assumption?

 

[Paro]

source?- or is this just an assumption?

Based on the quantity of uranium we have that is probably how many we can make. There is no source for that number. I searched a lot for it.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

source?- or is this just an assumption?

We have over 2 lakh tons of uranium. We have extracted a few thousand tons already. Per ton uranium, we can get 6 kg of plutonium if all U235 is exhausted by repetitive cycling and enrichment of fuel.

So, you can say that roughly 1 ton of uranium extracted = 1 thermonuclear bomb made and 1.5 tactical atom bomb made.

India probably has much more than 2000 bomb.

In WW2, only two nuclear bombs were dropped; and they extremely weak by modern nuclear weapon standards.

Regardless of quantitative effects, there's a qualitative effect too. If you were to start using them like conventional weapons, you would brand your nation as a psychopathic one that, for the good of mankind, cannot be allowed to remain in existence.

Who decides what is good for mankind? Is Jihad is good for mankind?

Let us not contaminate this thread as this is about IAF. Tag me in another thread if you want further discussion

 

[Bon Plan]

India has 2000 nukes already

where? on which kind of vectors? Free fall bombs? MIRV missiles? how many?
No. India just need to show it can inflict hard hits, and 200 warheads are enough.

 

[Bon Plan]

In WW2, millions of bombs were dropped, chemical weapons used, Napalms used to burn cities and so on but still just 8-10 crore people died.

Chemical weapons during WW2? where? only japan use it against prisonners and civilian, in low qty.
Napalm? OK, but not a decisiv weapon. Even in Vietnam, in another scale, it was not devisiv.

You definitively can't compare a classical weapon (bigger classical bomb is a 20 tons TNT one) with a "classical" thermonuclear one (150000 to 1 million tons of TNT).

 

[Bon Plan]

Based on the quantity of uranium we have that is probably how many we can make. There is no source for that number. I searched a lot for it.

There is a big difference between the Qty of natural Uranium you have, and the Qty of military grade you have ! It's even harder with plutonium.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Chemical weapons during WW2? where? only japan use it against prisonners and civilian, in low qty.
Napalm? OK, but not a decisiv weapon. Even in Vietnam, in another scale, it was not devisiv.

You definitively can't compare a classical weapon (bigger classical bomb is a 20 tons TNT one) with a "classical" thermonuclear one (150000 to 1 million tons of TNT).

I did caution you earlier - you've asked for it , you've had it .