India and Pakistan War could be very deadly

[ashben]

Indian and Pakistani Capabilities. You compare!

Snapshot 1

Snapshot 2

Snapshot 3

Snapshot 4

Original Source: www.nic.in

 

[AXCess]

0_0........I hope they wont use them...

 

[ashben]

However, the Janes Information Group states that India has around 50 to 150 nuclear warheads while Pakistan has around 25-50.

 

[Giancarlo]

Ashben: Pakistan may possess less military numbers but the Pakistani Airforce is what redeems all of those advantages India has. Being really well trained. As you all know numbers don't mean anything.

 

[ashben]

Originally posted by AXCess
0_0........I hope they wont use them...

They may not .. both India and Pakistan know they have more at loss from the whole situation. One strike and their GDP for a couple of years is down the drain .. not to mention the unaccountable loss of life, property and international economic reputation.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I again have corrected myself on ABCNews... they seem to be one of the least biased news agencies out there.

So you admit you contradicted yourself there.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm

http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html

How does that prove that liberal media outlets lie GC?

Originally posted by Giancarlo

No. It proves my argument that nuclear warfare is illogical.

Which is what I ahve been saying GC, and I am saying becasue of that, their isn't much likelyhood of a nuclear attack.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

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.

Smaller weapons of mass destruction? Small and mass(used the way it is) are opposites. Besides, chemical agents and nerve gas are not as devastating as nukes. The smaller the threat, the less chance someone will worry.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

No kidding sherlock.

Nice flame again GC. I was saying that because depsite the conflict, India and PAkistan are in the similar situation where both have nuclear capabilties, and the threat of retaliation makes a nuclear attack unlikely.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

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.

They have had them around 10 years GC(give or take a couple). Why haven't they used them in that time period?

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You read what I am writing for a change.

GC. I am. You keep shuffling away from my points. My point is nuclear threat isn't likely. I acknowledge the tensions, but I am saying is nothing that drastic will happen, regardless that they are firing on each other.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

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.

And you said it was very likely(look back at your first post in this thread if you don't remember). I am just stating that it isn't. I am not saying there is not chance nukes won't be used, but I am saying that a nuclear attack is NOT likely.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

ABSOLUTELY NOT! ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am not ignorant.

Never said you were GC. Read what I wrote. In simpler words I wrote "Are you that much smarter that you know it is illogical but they don't?" Where did I say "You are ignorant"?

Originally posted by Giancarlo

There are 30 Wars occuring in the world today.

And how many more could there be. I didn't say the threat of retlation stops all wars, but it prevents many of them. Are you going to hit someone without good reason when you know they will hit back, and just as hard or harder? Probably not.

Also going back to that ABC article(which I had not read earlier), it has been saying what I have been saying the whole time. Pakistan won't launch unless launched upon. That supports what I have been saying the whole time. Nuclear war is unlikely.

Finally GC. Why are you getting hostile again? I am not insulting you yet you feel the need to be sarcastic with calling me Sherlock, calling me a liar, and then assume I am calling you ignorant. Debate is not insulting unless you make it that way.

 

[ashben]

Chill out guys! Let's disarm

BTW, where can I get that list of "30 Wars occuring in the world today" .. seems like an interesting read.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by ashben
Chill out guys! Let's disarm

BTW, where can I get that list of "30 Wars occuring in the world today" .. seems like an interesting read.

I am not disarming cause I never armed I just get annoyed when someone starts getting angry because you disagree with them.

AS for the 30 wars thing, I am skeptical of that myself, but I will take his word on it as I don't feel like searching for a list of wars going on right now.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Owen


So you admit you contradicted yourself there.

I didn't contradict diddly squat. I just corrected am istake I made.

How does that prove that liberal media outlets lie GC?

Because they just do.

Which is what I ahve been saying GC, and I am saying becasue of that, their isn't much likelyhood of a nuclear attack.

I have said that nuclear warfare is illogical and have stood by that.

Smaller weapons of mass destruction? Small and mass(used the way it is) are opposites.

Incorrect. Smaller weapons of mass destructions usually refers to lower yield nukes and chemical/bio weapons.

Nice flame again GC. I was saying that because depsite the conflict, India and PAkistan are in the similar situation where both have nuclear capabilties, and the threat of retaliation makes a nuclear attack unlikely.

You are mixing up what I say. You really don't know anything about the region as it is.

They have had them around 10 years GC(give or take a couple). Why haven't they used them in that time period?

Because there hasn't been a massive war like they had in the past before they had nukes. Again I don't know why you are arguing with me.

GC. I am. You keep shuffling away from my points. My point is nuclear threat isn't likely. I acknowledge the tensions, but I am saying is nothing that drastic will happen, regardless that they are firing on each other.

You are not reading my posts because you are mixing up what I am saying.

And you said it was very likely(look back at your first post in this thread if you don't remember).

I take that back. I really don't know if it is or not.

I am just stating that it isn't. I am not saying there is not chance nukes won't be used, but I am saying that a nuclear attack is NOT likely.

You don't even know the specifics of this issue.

Never said you were GC. Read what I wrote. In simpler words I wrote "Are you that much smarter that you know it is illogical but they don't?" Where did I say "You are ignorant"?

You are mistaken again. You have to read what I said. Maybe you will actually understand what I am saying instead of making illogical statements about me.

And how many more could there be. I didn't say the threat of retlation stops all wars, but it prevents many of them. Are you going to hit someone without good reason when you know they will hit back, and just as hard or harder? Probably not.

Goodness this is getting tiring. Your statement is what I have been saying. I said nuclear war is illogical and quoted an article saying that Musharaff himself said it was insane.

Also going back to that ABC article(which I had not read earlier), it has been saying what I have been saying the whole time.

No it has not. It has been saying what I have been saying.

Pakistan won't launch unless launched upon. That supports what I have been saying the whole time. Nuclear war is unlikely.

You are making stuff up again. So what else is new? I said Pakistan won't launch in like five or six posts because they just won't want to take the blame for it in the end.

Finally GC. Why are you getting hostile again? I am not insulting you yet you feel the need to be sarcastic with calling me Sherlock, calling me a liar, and then assume I am calling you ignorant.

Whatever you say.

Debate is not insulting unless you make it that way.

This isn't debate. I don't even know what you are trying to debate. I have made my points.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ashben
BTW, where can I get that list of "30 Wars occuring in the world today" .. seems like an interesting read.

ERR Wrong. That is how many wars are occuring in the world today... either they be proxy or civil wars.

27 of those 30 are occuring in Islamic Countries.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

I didn't contradict diddly squat. I just corrected am istake I made.

Yes. You did.... Then you corrected yourself, but it always seems you just made a mistake and never contradicted yourself. huh?

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Because they just do.

That shows your lack of understanding there. That isn't a valid reason.

Say why it is instead of assuming. I could easily SAY your links are radical right.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

I have said that nuclear warfare is illogical and have stood by that.

But you also said in your first post
"If it does explode into war, which nuclear weapons will most likely be used"

I am not debating whether it is illogical or not. I am just saying I tihnk you are wrong on that statement.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Incorrect. Smaller weapons of mass destructions usually refers to lower yield nukes and chemical/bio weapons.

I know that GC. I am saying the warheads we are talking about are worse and insert more fear than the smaller weapons.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You are mixing up what I say. You really don't know anything about the region as it is.

Dang it GC. I am not talking about there the area is in conflict or not. I said it is. I am saying it isn't that much worse that nukes will be used(how many times do I have to say this?).

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Because there hasn't been a massive war like they had in the past before they had nukes. Again I don't know why you are arguing with me.

A Pakistan-Indian conflict will not be a massive war compared to other wars. They will involve 2, possible an extra country or two(allies) at the most. Nto exacty large, is it.

You have said many times nuclear attacks are likely.... I quoted one already, and in another post you made, you said I was wrong when I mentioned nuclear attacks were slim. You said

"How can you say the chances are slim? You don't know what could happen or not."

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You are not reading my posts because you are mixing up what I am saying.

What exactly am I mixing up? Be like me and show were I am mixing up what you said.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

I take that back. I really don't know if it is or not.

That is the whole point of what I am saying. You somehow managed to think I am talking about a variety of other subjects.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You don't even know the specifics of this issue.

How so? I seem to know just as much as you do.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You are mistaken again. You have to read what I said. Maybe you will actually understand what I am saying instead of making illogical statements about me.

You are dodging the question GC. Where did I call you ignorant? Thats all I want. I don't want some statement saying it is illogical.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Goodness this is getting tiring. Your statement is what I have been saying. I said nuclear war is illogical and quoted an article saying that Musharaff himself said it was insane.

Then why do you keep taking the opposite stance I do? I was saying there is little reason to worry about nuclear war because it won't happen, more than likely.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

No it has not. It has been saying what I have been saying.

Then what have I been saying GC? Go back and read every post. You have implied and said nuclear war is very possible, except for in that one post.

Your first post says nuclear was is likely, then you mention the ABC article, THEN you try to tell me that chances of nuclear attack aren't slim. You are contradicting yourself there.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You are making stuff up again. So what else is new? I said Pakistan won't launch in like five or six posts because they just won't want to take the blame for it in the end.

Read above.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Whatever you say.

So you just ignore what you don't like to hear GC. Are you admitting you were wrong then, because you seem to ignore that.

Originally posted by Giancarlo

This isn't debate. I don't even know what you are trying to debate. I have made my points.

Yes. This is a debate. AT least it was until you suddenly to decide to agree with me.

And No. You keep shifting in your points. Multiple times you have either been proven wrong in this thread or have changed your opinion.

Why didn't you just say you agreed with me with my first post on the subject if you actually did? I have been saying the same thing the whole time.

 

[YUPAPA]

I love you two!

 

[meow]

Pervert!

 

[Owen]

Since you either changed your views midway or you are confused as to what I am debating/asking, here are the 4 things I am trying to ask/debate with you?


1. Do you think there is a high chance of a nuclear attack(NOT relative to other situations)? By that are the odds high it will happen, in your opinion?

2. How are the newspapers lying as you say? Where have they lied? This isn't your opinion, but whether there are facts or not.

These next 2 aren't on the topic of the thread

3. Where did I ever call you ignorant?

4. Why did you call me a liar and sarcastically call me Sherlock, as you were beginning to flame me?


Forget the others posts I have made. Just answer those questions, if you wish, or you can just choose to ignore them.

 

[YUPAPA]

He won't ignore u trust me...

 

[Giancarlo]

I have not changed anything and you owen have misinterpreted what I have said again. I will not continue on with this garbage anymore because you obviously know nothing about this area. Good day. I have stood by my beliefs the entire time.

 

[YUPAPA]

SEE :biggrin2:

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Owen
1. Do you think there is a high chance of a nuclear attack(NOT relative to other situations)? By that are the odds high it will happen, in your opinion?

Impossible to answer. I will ignore the rest of your questions as all you do is try to smear my name in light of your arbitrary and contradictory arguments.

Yupapa don't ruin this thread.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Owen


Yes. You did.... Then you corrected yourself, but it always seems you just made a mistake and never contradicted yourself. huh?

A mistake is a mistake.

That shows your lack of understanding there. That isn't a valid reason.

I will repeat the same for you. You know nothing about this area.

Say why it is instead of assuming. I could easily SAY your links are radical right.

I am not assuming anything.

But you also said in your first post
"If it does explode into war, which nuclear weapons will most likely be used"

Impossible to say whether or not.

I am not debating whether it is illogical or not. I am just saying I tihnk you are wrong on that statement.

You don't know what you are talking about. I have shifted my earlier status from likely to impossible to say. Not unlikely.

I know that GC. I am saying the warheads we are talking about are worse and insert more fear than the smaller weapons.

No kidding.

Dang it GC. I am not talking about there the area is in conflict or not. I said it is. I am saying it isn't that much worse that nukes will be used(how many times do I have to say this?).

You don't know the specifics of this issue as demostrated in your past few posts.

A Pakistan-Indian conflict will not be a massive war compared to other wars. They will involve 2, possible an extra country or two(allies) at the most. Nto exacty large, is it.

It will be a massive war because there are about a million soliders on the borders.

You have said many times nuclear attacks are likely.... I quoted one already, and in another post you made, you said I was wrong when I mentioned nuclear attacks were slim. You said

Impossible to say whether or not.

What exactly am I mixing up? Be like me and show were I am mixing up what you said.

You keep on mixing up my entire argument as a whole. Your lack of understanding in this area does not help the argument either.

How so? I seem to know just as much as you do.

You obviously certainly do not.

You are dodging the question GC. Where did I call you ignorant? Thats all I want. I don't want some statement saying it is illogical.

You keep on continuing with your smear contest, I will refuse to answer these arbitrary questions.

Then why do you keep taking the opposite stance I do? I was saying there is little reason to worry about nuclear war because it won't happen, more than likely.

It is impossible to say whether nuclear war is likely or not.

Then what have I been saying GC? Go back and read every post. You have implied and said nuclear war is very possible, except for in that one post.

You do the same with my posts because you obviously missed every point I have been trying to make.

Your first post says nuclear was is likely, then you mention the ABC article, THEN you try to tell me that chances of nuclear attack aren't slim. You are contradicting yourself there.

DAMN IT I AM SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL IF ITS LIKELY OR NOT.

So you just ignore what you don't like to hear GC. Are you admitting you were wrong then, because you seem to ignore that.

I was not wrong. You were.

Yes. This is a debate. AT least it was until you suddenly to decide to agree with me.

No, this is a smear contest. And you don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore I said it is impossible to say and I am not argeeing with you ON ANYTHING. Absolutely nothing!

And No. You keep shifting in your points. Multiple times you have either been proven wrong in this thread or have changed your opinion.

I have never said I have been proven wrong because you lack knowledge on this area. I have shifted my opinion from yes it is very likely to it is impossible to say whether it would happen or not.

Why didn't you just say you agreed with me with my first post on the subject if you actually did? I have been saying the same thing the whole time.

I did not. You are wrong. It is impossible to say whether nuclear war is likely or not.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Impossible to answer. I will ignore the rest of your questions as all you do is try to smear my name in light of your arbitrary and contradictory arguments.

And see. That is what we are debating.... I think the chances are slim. I think it is possible to answer. So why get mad that I was debating it with you?

How am I contradicting myself?

How am I smearing your name? Because I am calling you to explain what you said? Why should you worry about me smearing your name if you did nothing wrong? Thats a sign of either a guilty consicence or one who refuses to take responsbility. I am just asking you to back up waht you say, but you seem to have no evidence to support it.

People are smart. They can read this thread and see what you and I said. I am just asking you to tell me why you said what you said?