-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
India and Pakistan War could be very deadly
- Thread starter Giancarlo
- Start date
- Status
Newspaper get this information from biased leftist sources. Take the Boston Globe for example, a newspaper respected by communist groups and provides false information.
This site is another source I am going to use:
http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html - 2002 Source. Undefeatable.
Somebody was right about aircraft carrying nukes, but India would most likely leave them in silos for launching from there instead. The MiG-27 and Jaguar are the two aircraft that could.
This site is another source I am going to use:
http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html - 2002 Source. Undefeatable.
Somebody was right about aircraft carrying nukes, but India would most likely leave them in silos for launching from there instead. The MiG-27 and Jaguar are the two aircraft that could.
GC. What do you base the idea that the newspapers are all communist as you say they are? They may be slightly liberal, but I haven't seen any paper embraces communism. Supporting democrats is not communism.
Also, that latest article you gave us states that Pakistan has more than 30-35 warheads(you earlier gave an article that stated they had 10 warheads). Do you know why India would have gone down to the reduced amount of 30 warheads while Pakistan would increase their load by 20(based upon the estimates). I haven't noticed any treaties where India was supposed to reduce the amount of their arms, and even if they did, it would seem unlikely they complied based upon thier 1998 tests.
Also, why would India likely leave their warheads on a launching pad, which can take up to 20 hours as you say, when they could launch them from an aircraft which would require less time? Doesn't make much of sense.
However, I seriously doubt either country would launch their warheads based on the fact that they know if they used a nuke, the other country would counter back with a nuke(plus the wrath of all of the other nations who are part of nuclear warhead treaties). A basic principle of war is to destroy as much as you can while sustaining as little of a loss as possible(unless a decisive victory is pretty much assured). Doesn't make sense unless either country has somehow developed a missle defense system without any other countries discovering it(extremely unlikely), or if they have knowledge of the location of most of the warheads of their rival and are extremely confident they could take them out before a counter attack(and even then they have to worry about
I think worrying about a nuclear war is a case of worrying too much. The US and Russia were just as bitter of rivals during the cold war, with much larger arsenal of weapons, and nothing became of that.
Also, that latest article you gave us states that Pakistan has more than 30-35 warheads(you earlier gave an article that stated they had 10 warheads). Do you know why India would have gone down to the reduced amount of 30 warheads while Pakistan would increase their load by 20(based upon the estimates). I haven't noticed any treaties where India was supposed to reduce the amount of their arms, and even if they did, it would seem unlikely they complied based upon thier 1998 tests.
Also, why would India likely leave their warheads on a launching pad, which can take up to 20 hours as you say, when they could launch them from an aircraft which would require less time? Doesn't make much of sense.
However, I seriously doubt either country would launch their warheads based on the fact that they know if they used a nuke, the other country would counter back with a nuke(plus the wrath of all of the other nations who are part of nuclear warhead treaties). A basic principle of war is to destroy as much as you can while sustaining as little of a loss as possible(unless a decisive victory is pretty much assured). Doesn't make sense unless either country has somehow developed a missle defense system without any other countries discovering it(extremely unlikely), or if they have knowledge of the location of most of the warheads of their rival and are extremely confident they could take them out before a counter attack(and even then they have to worry about
I think worrying about a nuclear war is a case of worrying too much. The US and Russia were just as bitter of rivals during the cold war, with much larger arsenal of weapons, and nothing became of that.
Okay fine.
I said earlier that Pakistan has between 10 - 30 warheads.
I doubt it. The estimates are all over the graph... some say completely different things. I am just going with the Nuclear Statisticans and Scientists on this one. Not some liberal newspaper.
The aircraft can easily be shot down by Pakistan's very well trained airforce. Pakistan has one of the best trained airforces in the world and it could do similar or close to that of Israel in flying hours and sorties.
I still have my concerns.
Nuclear warfare doesn't make sense then. It never has. The only time it worked was in WWII, because only one country had nukes.
The US could take out nuclear silos anytime.
The US and Russia are now friends but I still have concerns about other countries including Israel (possessing hundreds of short-range nukes), India and Pakistan, China and North Korea. Maybe not the country launching but sabotage could occur in their silos and cause a grave international crisis.
Last edited:
No where did you say Pakistan had 30 warheads. The only estimate you ever gave was 10 warheads from that article.
Why would a liberal newspaper lie about number of nukes? Doesn't make much sense.
Yet, they can easily be disabled if launched from the ground, at least by what you imply.
Hence, that is the reason why we have not had a nuclear attack since WWII. The threat of nuclear retaliation has kept countries from launching a nuclear attack. Why would that suddenly change now?
Yes. I am still aware about the friendship now between the US and Russia. However, you use history to predict the future somewhat. Based upon the Cold War and the tensions, there were no nukes launched, so why should we be so worried that the other countries will launch nukes.
I am not saying don't keep a cautious eye on it, but stating that the chances of a nuclear war is high creates panic, when infact, the chances are still slim. There are too many deterents to launch warheads, especially from developing countries with smaller arsenals.
Early in this thread I gave a general estimate.
What the?
Liberal newspapers lie all the time about everything.The silos could be destroyed.
Have I ever suggested that would change? A country is given nukes and another is too... would they launch... you may never know.
No nukes were launched because you have people like Richard Nixon signing arms deals. You haven't seen that in this conflict.
How can you say the chances are slim? You don't know what could happen or not. There is a fact you are ignoring here repeatably, there are no Nixon like arms treaties between the two countries... they share a border which is in dispute and have territory in dispute. The US and USSR had no territory disputes when it came to their homeland. Try again.
U people know much of this stuff! The only thing I know is that I`m scared! For real! I`ve never
been in a war before, nor I have ever seen one! I mean I`m only 14, I don`t wanna die yet!
I`ve got so much to see and so much to learn! I never had sex before! Is it strange to be scared?
been in a war before, nor I have ever seen one! I mean I`m only 14, I don`t wanna die yet!
I`ve got so much to see and so much to learn! I never had sex before! Is it strange to be scared?
No you didn't. You did say 10, based upon an article, but nowhere do you say 30. Tell me where you said it, if you did?
Originally posted by Giancarlo
What the?
That is enough evidence for me
. Back that up with evidence from recently and reasons why they would lie about warhead arsenals. Making statements such as that does not prove it.You don't know either. But you stated that is was extremely likely.
Why weren't their other nukes launched in between WWII and the signing of arms deals?
I say the chances are slim because it hasn't happened since WWII, even before arm treaties.
The US and Russia were bitter enemies on the opposite side of the spectrum. They weren't exactly friends. India and Pakistan don't have that much more tensions. Add to the fact that they would be obliterated by countries like the US, Russia, etc. with larger arsenals, that deter's them even more from launching such an attack than the US and Russia during the conflict.
There is little reason for you to worry about a nuclear war, no matter where you live. As for a "normal" war, chances are unlikely anything drastic would happen to you, unless you live in one of the areas that have high tensions. Even then, most wars don't focus on civilians, but more on military instalations.
Basically, there isn't a need to worry a lot probably. What country do you live in?
ADD- Like meow said, it isn't wrong to be worried, but there isn't a huge reason to worry, in most cases.
Last edited:
More lies.....
Yes I did. I said it was 10-30 or so based on an ABC News Article. They gave the figure. I don't trust them that much because they are left-leaning.
OH REALLY? I have provided two more recent links to disprove your entire statement. Making illogical statements with communist newspapers behind you is illogical.
No I didn't. I said something needs to be done about this before it gets worse.
Because Germany was defeated and Japan only needed two blasted on their cities before they unconditionally surrendered.
Yes but Richard Nixon helped prevented a complete nuclear war taking place because of a treaty he signed with Brezhnev. In this conflict there is no such treaty.
Oh really? They are launching artillery and howitzer shells into each other's territory specifically in a hotly disputed region known as Kashmir that you seem to not know about.
Probably. But you never know.
Yes I did. I said it was 10-30 or so based on an ABC News Article. They gave the figure. I don't trust them that much because they are left-leaning.
That is enough evidence for me
OH REALLY? I have provided two more recent links to disprove your entire statement. Making illogical statements with communist newspapers behind you is illogical.
No I didn't. I said something needs to be done about this before it gets worse.
Because Germany was defeated and Japan only needed two blasted on their cities before they unconditionally surrendered.
Yes but Richard Nixon helped prevented a complete nuclear war taking place because of a treaty he signed with Brezhnev. In this conflict there is no such treaty.
Oh really? They are launching artillery and howitzer shells into each other's territory specifically in a hotly disputed region known as Kashmir that you seem to not know about.
Probably. But you never know.
Nice flame GC. Can someone debate civily and disagree with you without you calling them a liar?
You are contradicting yourself. You say you don't trust them, then claim you made that estimate? Which way is it gonna be GC?
Why is it illogical GC? CAn you prove or will you keep saying that without backing it up? If you have provided reason why they lie, show them to me. Remember though, you said estimation is tough to do, so you have to prove that they lie and that they didn't misestimate.
"which nuclear weapons will most likely be used the possible estimates are this" From your first post.
But why have there been none since then?
But there wasn't a treaty between WWII and the Treaty Nixon signed. Explain why there wasn't any nuclear attacks then?
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Oh really? They are launching artillery and howitzer shells into each other's territory specifically in a hotly disputed region known as Kashmir that you seem to not know about.
I said much more. The US and USSR were sending threats back and forth and USSR was sending their nukes to Cuba. Not directly attacking, but it was rising tensions. Yet not a single nuke was fired. I am asking you to prove why the chances of a nuclear strike is high.
And that is why their won't be a nuclear attack. CAuse they don't know, but they figure they will. Fear of attack is what is needed as a deterent, not an actual attack.
I have to look at many sources. Based on what I have seen... those two latest sources I posted, the fas.org one and the ABC new source I would say the general estimate is between there. I actually also think ABCNews is more center-right leaning... my own correction.
I have provided two additional links that you have ignored. And quite basically those new agencies and newspapers are biased to the left. And I don't trust leftist sources.
I am not sure.
From Encarta on why Eisenhower wouldn't of launched nukes:
Because Eisenhower wanted peace, on a number of occasions he turned down recommendations by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he launch a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviets while the United States still had more atomic bombs. He called his defense policy the New Look. It relied on nuclear weapons to deter the Soviets, but he refused to spend even half as much as most politicians demanded for those weapons, and he was reluctant to spend money on rocket development.
His proudest accomplishment as president was making and keeping the peace. What he did best was managing crises, many of which threatened to lead to nuclear war.
Kennedy also managed to maintain the peace on nuclear tensions until Nixon arrived to office.
Because India and Pakistan actively dispute a piece of territory and fire shells at each other. The US and USSR did not, well not at least directly. You are ignoring that fact. And I am getting tired of it.
Whatever. You seem to ignore the fact that these two countries are shooting at each other.
Fine GC, but you did say "Yes I did. I said it was 10-30 or so based on an ABC News Article. They gave the figure. I don't trust them that much because they are left-leaning. " You were saying you didn't trust ABC.
Where are they. I did not see any links. Repost them, cause I may have looked over them.
MAybe because the likelyhood of a nuclear attack was slim maybe
Which proves my point that nuclear weapons deter the opponent, in nuclear warfare and otherwise.
Yes, but that doens't explain the USSR, and all the other countries who have had nukes, and why they haven't used them. Do you think they would not have used nukes if they knew they had no counterattack to worry about? Why did the USSR heed the US threats durign the Cuban Missle Crisis. Becasue the US could back them up with nuclear weapons.
No I am not ignoring that fact. I am stating that the tensions aren't that much higher that would cause a nuclear war. Besides, the tensions between Pakistan and India did not happen just yesterday. They haven't used nukes yet.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Whatever. You seem to ignore the fact that these two countries are shooting at each other.
Again I am not ignoring it. Read what I am writing.
You yourself that nuclear war makes no sense. Are you telling me that you are that much more of an expert than national and military leaders that you know it is illogical, but they don't GC?
You say you are a military expert, but you seem to dismiss the fact that most people will not kill someone knowing they will be killed as a result(there are a few exceptions such as suicide bombers, but most people would rather live). That is the main reason wars don't break out everyday. The threat of retaliation. It doesn't stop them all, but it deters most conflicts.
Last edited:
I again have corrected myself on ABCNews... they seem to be one of the least biased news agencies out there.
http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html
No. It proves my argument that nuclear warfare is illogical.
Because those countries don't have one of the most dangerous pieces of territory under dispute. Iraq didn't actually use nukes, but it used nerve gas and chemcial agents on Iran during the war and Iran did the same. They are smaller weapons of mass destruction.
No kidding sherlock.
The tensions have had been occuring since Independence and probably are rooted much earlier than that. These countries have been firing bullets at each other for a long time and only recently have they acquired nuclear weapons.
You read what I am writing for a change.
Some of these leaders are radicals. I am not. I am just stating what could occur. Note the party Vajpayee belongs to is the BJP, and that is a nationalist party.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am not ignorant.
There are 30 Wars occuring in the world today.
- Status
