Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Mar 2011 21:03

shiv wrote: My worst nightmare would not be a 100 nuke war, but more on the lines of be something I wrote ages ago which many will recall - the Pakistani nuclear attack on Jingorampur. A single nuclear bomb out of the blue is something that could fail to cause the desired response.

That is a very sad, but very likely scenario.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 00:04

Shiv,
The first thing that would be needed by the survivors of a nuclear strike is a weapon to protect themselves from the ensuing chaos that will come from within as there will be a substantial time lag between the incident and the arrival of first responders.If self preservation is assured then only the next steps can be organized.
The gun control laws should be relaxed to enable common citizens to carry firearms at home or shelter.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Mar 2011 00:09

pran wrote:The gun control laws should be relaxed to enable common citizens to carry firearms at home or shelter.

No guns!

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 09 Mar 2011 00:11

Samudragupta wrote:This is a classic Paki mentality....

a) Launch a full scale nuclear attack on all major Indian cities immediately.
b) Mobilize the whole FATA population and send them to Jammu and Kashmir to fight the troops there.
With chaos in the whole sub-continent and nuclear Armageddon in both countries India will definitely be dismembered.
Pakistan can be repopulated later with immigrants from other Muslim countries.
The question is whether India will be repopulated again or not.

http://www.idsa.in/node/5442/533#comment-53

Why would a country with a population of 1.3 billion need to be repopulated? Perhaps the nation state will temporarily collapse as far as administration & communication is concerned, but India as an entity will not be ended by 50-100 Paki nukes.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 00:14

RajeshA wrote:
pran wrote:The gun control laws should be relaxed to enable common citizens to carry firearms at home or shelter.
No guns!

??? I would like to know your viewpoints.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Mar 2011 00:24

OT

pran wrote:
pran wrote:The gun control laws should be relaxed to enable common citizens to carry firearms at home or shelter.
RajeshA wrote:No guns!
??? I would like to know your viewpoints.

pran ji,
there are arguments against and in favor of guns for the common citizen! Sometimes it is a religion!

So I can only reproduce the standard objections to relaxation of gun control! I just don't think, that guns really contribute to a peaceful society. Bad people are simply forced to procure bigger better guns than those in the possession of the common citizen. When they do that, it becomes that much harder for the security services of the country to get them under control. At the same time the petty thieves, bullies and common criminals all get guns, and violence increases.

I am though in favor of every child in India to be taught martial arts!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Mar 2011 00:27

You need tonnes of antibioics to ward of infection and loss of imunization due to radiatation damage. No need for guns for all as that leads to more deaths.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 00:30

RajeshA ji,
Having gun control laws in peacetime does not prevent criminals from having one while law abiding citizens can't. But in the topic of nuclear fallout survival we are talking about exceptional circumstances and I believe that having means of lethal protection one can increase their chances for survival of themselves and their kith and kin.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 00:45

ramana wrote:You need tonnes of antibioics to ward of infection and loss of imunization due to radiatation damage. No need for guns for all as that leads to more deaths.

I understand that being a Indian, guns are an anathema but I am thinking very carefully and question what protects me as and Indian from another making a bad judgement call under distress.

Adding to your line of thought. Every major target city and smaller towns/cities within its 150 kms radius should be planned to have the following.
1. Road/Rail transport.
2. Underground Water Storage
3. Underground Fuel Storage
4. Backup emergency power generation.
5. Medical facilities and medicine storage.
6. underground Food storage.
7. Heavy lifiting machinery i.e trucks,cranes,forklifts
8. A disciplined administration which can stream line the resources in the best possible manner.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Mar 2011 00:55

OT

pran wrote:RajeshA ji,
Having gun control laws in peacetime does not prevent criminals from having one while law abiding citizens can't. But in the topic of nuclear fallout survival we are talking about exceptional circumstances and I believe that having means of lethal protection one can increase their chances for survival of themselves and their kith and kin.

As I said, guns are not guns! Criminals would always have bigger guns than the law abiding citizen! In order to maintain their advantage over the common citizen, the criminals would get themselves a host of protective gear and much more lethal weaponry. This is not good! The common citizen would always be armed much more poorly than the criminal. It has always been like that! So we should not push the criminals into an arms race against the common man. The criminals will win!

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 00:59

RajeshA wrote: As I said, guns are not guns! Criminals would always have bigger guns than the law abiding citizen! In order to maintain their advantage over the common citizen, the criminals would get themselves a host of protective gear and much more lethal weaponry. This is not good! The common citizen would always be armed much more poorly than the criminal. It has always been like that! So we should not push the criminals into an arms race against the common man. The criminals will win!

Fair enough, you have your viewpoint and I have mine , it does not mean we have to agree on each others. Lets leave it at that.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Mar 2011 01:28

...A mysterious blast has devastated large areas of Jingorampur. The blast which occurred at 10 AM caused the ground to shake ...

.. [ Reports of ..] US media that a rogue Pakistani nuclear bomb had been exploded. "The US has so many bombs - it could have been a US bomb" said a minister...

Optical flash and/or radio-frequency pulse (along with x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons etc) will right away detect a nuclear explosion. (simple devices such as bhangmeter, are routinely employed ..and earth is monitored by satellites).. No, in this day and age, in India, there is about zero chance that there will be any doubt about the cause if this was a nuclear bomb..India would know (there will be so many who would know that it will be impossible to keep it quiet).. One can, and will, trace without doubt where the fission material came from...(recently some one found an old sample of residual Pu - from an earlier test in Nevada, the sample was stored in a safe - and it was not difficult to pinpoint the reactor which produced the bomb material some 5 decades ago)

... I know that some people here routinely mock Indian scientists, GOI netas and babus but I don't think it is at all likely that the origin of such a bomb would remain a 'mystery' even for a short time...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Mar 2011 04:07

Samudragupta wrote:This is a classic Paki mentality....

a) Launch a full scale nuclear attack on all major Indian cities immediately.
b) Mobilize the whole FATA population and send them to Jammu and Kashmir to fight the troops there.
With chaos in the whole sub-continent and nuclear Armageddon in both countries India will definitely be dismembered.
Pakistan can be repopulated later with immigrants from other Muslim countries.
The question is whether India will be repopulated again or not.

http://www.idsa.in/node/5442/533#comment-53

This has come before. However, in response to Islamic terrorism, an American politician had suggested to take on the very source of Islam. That has got to be an option on the table. If not for anything else just as a fear factor. Those tasked with repopulating "Pakistan" will have to seriously weigh the options. (plenty of assumptions here granted.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2011 06:16

For a crisis to develop into the exchange of 50 nukes - chances are that there will be some signs before that happens.

The basic minimum signs would be evidence of Pakistani preparation of delivery systems. But the nuke out of nowhere scenario is exactly the sort of "deniable" attack that Pakistan has excelled in. If such an attack were to occur it woudl be one thing for India to pinpoint Pakistan - but "international support" to Pakistan could make "respected" news media like NYT blame the loss of FSU devices and "non state groups" and not the Pakistan military. This is exactly how Pakistan was supported for decades by its ally the USA.

This sort of international pressure on India not to retaliate to a Jingopura type strike is likely to lead to a situation where India is mobilizing its nuclear forces and Pakistan does the same thing - with the Pakis blowing hot and blowing cold about massive retaliation and the complete destruction of India in language that would be clearly designed to cause fear in India. The usual culprits will talk of loss of business confidence, crash in SENSEX and ask if the government is not mistaken in preparing for nuclear war when the NYT syas FSU bomb by non state actors may have been used and Pakistan has been in the middle of Aman ki Asha.

But if India's NFU is to be followed, India will have to retaliate or else it will mean nothing and invite more attacks with gaps of months or years.

I think that it would be worth talking about this kind of scenario up front in a national debate. My personal view is that the nation should actually prepare for nuclear war by having mock drills where non essential people in cities and places vulnerable to nuclear attack are advised to move out of the main population centers to their "hometowns" and villages and stock up on food and water. Nothing would be more scary for a country like Pakistan to see India actually preparing to be hit by nukes and survive. It would be scary for everyone - but as a nation we have to hold our nerve - having held our nerve so many times in the face of grave provocation. Once we know that many of our near and dear ones are relatively safe and out of harms way we can be ready to nuke Pakistan out of existence. Of course the IAF has mentioned 8000 odd targets in Pakistan. But about 50 major Pakistani targets should have nukes. There should be no Islamabad, Rawalpindi Lahore, Karachi, left after the war. And we prepare to get hit and come out with most major second tier towns and many state capital cities and major cities intact.

That may be the only way to deal with Pakistan. We can then repopulate that country while mopping up opposition.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 09 Mar 2011 06:42

The most likely apocalypse in our future: An Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange

George Perkovich, director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, confessed to his audience, "Those who really know what's going on in Pakistan's nuclear complex aren't talking about it, and those who are talking, including myself, don't really know what's going on in Pakistan's nuclear complex."

He also said that when he was contacted for the event, he told Richard Weitz (full disclosure: Richard Weitz is a non-resident senior fellow at Center for a New American Security, where Tom is a senior fellow and I intern) he didn't think it should happen at all, saying "When Americans, especially, talk about nuclear issues and concerns, in particular about the security of nuclear weapons and fissile materials in Pakistan, that gets heard in many ways in Pakistan and almost all of them are not helpful." The discussion, he said, feeds a narrative in Pakistan, veracity aside, that the United States is only interested in self-preservation, its efforts are far from philanthropic, that it is anti-Muslim, playing favorites with India, and leading a concerted effort to denuclearize Pakistan, possibly with Israeli or Indian aid.

The discussion continued, despite the caveats.

The point that all three panelists expressed was simple but important: U.S. fears of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, while valid, overlook the greater threat of a nuclear conflict with India. The fuse to ignite a war has been lit before -- at Kargil in 1999, after the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, and most recently, after the Mumbai attacks in 2008 -- but a nuclear exchange has been prevented each time. With each of these incidents, though, the fuse has been cut shorter.

The greatest risk for nuclear war in our time is the scenario in which a Pakistan-based terror group with ties to Inter-Services Intelligence launches another attack on India ("another Mumbai" is the catchphrase, but it won't necessarily have to be of that scale or spectacle and is widely considered a matter of when, not if) and this touches off a sequence of escalation that results in a nuclear strike and response. It's nearly happened before. Aparna Pande, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, described the strong pro-nuclear strike faction in Indian politics after the Mumbai attacks in 2008 and the common sentiment of, "if Pakistan can cross the border and hit us, why can't we hit back?" The answer is: because it's a short fuse. That simple fact, and the peril it implies, has been enough in the past, but it might not be good enough next time.

This is a global problem. "The impact on the United States is potentially larger than people realize," said Matthew Bunn, co-principal investigator for the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University. He described studies in which nuclear war was simulated using atmospheric models developed for climate change research, "and if cities are actually burned it can cause enough soot to go up into the upper atmosphere that will stay for a long time, to seriously interfere with global agriculture." The resultant nuclear autumn could cause famine, and not just in South Asia.

The bad news is that Pakistan's nuclear program is expanding -- it's set to become the fourth largest nuclear power, it is developing smaller, more mobile bombs, and it is building more nuclear reactors to churn out bulk supplies of weapons-grade uranium. The good news, though, is that (as far as we can tell) Pakistan has an effective security program in place. The bombs are under the purview of the military, the most stable and competent institution in the country. They are kept disassembled with the components kept in separate buildings, at secret facilities that both India and the United States would be hard-pressed to find. The sites are guarded by thousands of troops being watched by a meticulous internal affairs bureau to screen out extremists. It might be sufficient if Pakistan were not one of the most threatening and most threatened countries in the world.

Infiltration remains the greatest tactical threat to Pakistan's nuclear security. There will always be a way to slip through a screening process -- in 2009, members of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan attacked the Pakistani Army headquarters in military uniforms carrying forged IDs, and previously at least two men affiliated with al Qaeda infiltrated then-President Pervez Musharraf's security detail and attempted to assassinate him. The insider threat remains, but as Bunn pointed out, there are only so many security measures that can be put in place that will actually improve Pakistan's already thorough security.

Ultimately, it's the threat -- both in Pakistan's domestic terror threats and in Indo-Pakistani relations -- that needs to be reduced.

The nuclear issue is only going to become more important as greater emphasis, both here in Washington and in South Asia, is placed on the threat posed by Pakistani militant groups. A journalist for the Pakistani Spectator, in worried and urgent tones, told the panel that, with the prevailing popular opinion in Pakistan, the United States is "pushing Pakistan in the corner, and they are depending more on the weapon because Pakistan is literally collapsing." It will be up to the international community, and largely the United States, to help buttress Pakistan's faltering democracy. The success or failure of stabilization efforts in the next several years will determine which cliché the Pakistani bomb will become: common ground, bargaining chip, or loose cannon.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 09 Mar 2011 06:48

shivji:
^^^^^
You truly have mastered Pakiness. More power to you.

That Jingopora scenario is my scenario B. A nuke blamed on a non-state actor or a rogue element. How will India respond with the entire world putting its weight to bear on her? From the TSP point of view it is just the natural escalation of terror. But then they would be ranting about using 100 nukes if India threatens to use one. What if they use the ruse of a pending Indian strike to launch the 100?

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 09 Mar 2011 08:54

pran wrote:Shiv,
The first thing that would be needed by the survivors of a nuclear strike is a weapon to protect themselves from the ensuing chaos that will come from within as there will be a substantial time lag between the incident and the arrival of first responders.If self preservation is assured then only the next steps can be organized.
The gun control laws should be relaxed to enable common citizens to carry firearms at home or shelter.

The Gun Control law should be made that every Gazetted Central Govt employee can carry and keep gun.
Maybe this can be extended later to all employees and then state govt employees and then public sector employees.
And it should stop at that.

There are approximately 3-4 crores of these. Add to these every ex servicemen and ex police or para military force. That would be around another 1 crore. So 5 crore(50 million) people in India should be armed, distributed roughly equally all over India and should be backbone of internal security, during any catastrophic disaster.

Why only govt employees, and not others. I haven't found a better group of people which can pass legal muster, i.e. only sikhs or only rajputs would be unimplementable and everyone like in US is inviting daily disaster.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 09 Mar 2011 09:08

NRao wrote:
This has come before. However, in response to Islamic terrorism, an American politician had suggested to take on the very source of Islam. That has got to be an option on the table. If not for anything else just as a fear factor. Those tasked with repopulating "Pakistan" will have to seriously weigh the options. (plenty of assumptions here granted.)

The threat alone of taking down source of Islam with 2 nooks is enough to deter TSPA. One has to properly understand paki convert mentality. They would rather have their daughters violated by KSA namards, then their son gainfully employed by a Hindu bania.
Islamists can accept 200 nooks on barren and useless TSP, but not 2 on Arabian sands. This is why Israel will always survive and so would India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2011 09:08

On the issue of gun control laws if you approach the issue from the perspective of the people who want to change the law then this is what you get

We want cross party political support for a law that makes it legal for xyz to bear guns

Why?

To be armed for the chaos that will follow in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war

Why would there be chaos? When are you expecting nuclear war?

Well Pakistan has 100 plus nukes and china has 400 so we can get hit any time.

But why change gun laws? Why not try and prevent nuclear war? For most people after that war, guns will be no use

Yes, but what about those who survive?

They will need food, fuel, water, shelter, medicines. Not guns

What if looters and hoarders are there. Guns will be needed to control them

Correct. The looters and hoarders will be the first people to arm themselves. And injured, hungry and weak people will be the first to be eliminated. What we need is for the local administration to work well in a disaster. Not guns for everyone

No you are wrong. Everyone must have guns.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 10:28

As I infer from the previous posts that the order of priorities to face a nuclear disaster needs to be analyzed and then implemented by the surviving citizens and administration. This can be broadly subdivided into steps for govt. (similar to war book) and steps for civilians. I am collecting my thoughts not in any particular order

Foreign & Nuclear Policy and retaliation red lines
Defense/Intelligence preparedness and execution. (Armed Forces)
Communications Security and redundancy
Energy security and redundancy.
Transport security and redundancy.
Life sustaining essentials - food,water,medicine
Mass communication and training and increasing citizen awareness and preparedness.
Plan evacuation/entry routes,modes to avert logjam.
Organize defense groups at community levels.

I brought up the issue of lethal power for common citizen because when govt. administration fails to reach people, they have to be on their own and responsible for their well being as it has been demonstrated recently during Egyptian revolution when citizens had to defend their community in the absence of a govt./administration. The Indian govt. allows people living on the western border to bear arms to protect themselves because govt. actions have a lot of inertia and time lag.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Mar 2011 12:52

pran wrote:RajeshA ji,
Having gun control laws in peacetime does not prevent criminals from having one while law abiding citizens can't. But in the topic of nuclear fallout survival we are talking about exceptional circumstances and I believe that having means of lethal protection one can increase their chances for survival of themselves and their kith and kin.

The most crucial reason why private gun ownership will not work in India is simply because the vast majority of the population cannot afford it. I think the people who are making a case here for private guns probably live in the US where even a low income family buying and maintaining a pistol or a shotgun is no big deal. But for most people here buying even a cycle is a big decision, heck most criminals dont have guns and the few that do can mostly afford to keep only Kattas or home made guns. Relaxing gun laws will only create haves and have-nots. If you think about it guns are like Nuclear weapons, you can have nuclear peace only in a situation where every one owns them or nobody does.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Mar 2011 13:23

^^^

It might be sufficient if Pakistan were not one of the most threatening and most threatened countries in the world.

This is fake. Pak is insecure about themselves and now they are the most threatened! It is all in their minds

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 09 Mar 2011 19:38

A while ago I came across this series which suggests that gun control is increasingly a non-issue in India. Sure, gun licenses are hard to come by, and you are supposed to have one. But just like traffic rules, this is observed more in the breach with people arming themselves whichever way they can.

India: Armed and dangerous

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Mar 2011 19:51

Acharya wrote:^^^
This is fake. Pak is insecure about themselves and now they are the most threatened! It is all in their minds

The only solution to bring peace to Pakis is by nuking them. Indian Supreme Court approved mercy killing recently.

India should cease an opportunity like jingopura.

While Pakistan is a mad nation, PRC is a coward nation. PRC will not risk a direct nuke war.

pran · Post by **pran** » 09 Mar 2011 22:08

http://www.ki4u.com/survive/index.htm
We can adapt these guidelines to the Indian environment.

The Eleven Steps to Survival

Governments and communities at all levels are planning for the survival of our Nation in the event of a nuclear war. But the survival of individuals also will depend upon the preparation that each person makes. Persons ready to take the right action before and following an attack will increase their chances of survival.

This pamphlet describes what YOU can do before and following a nuclear attack. You can greatly increase your family's and your own protection by taking the Eleven Steps to Survival:

Step 1: Know the effects of nuclear explosions.

Step 2: Know the facts about radioactive fallout.

Step 3: Know the warning signal and have a battery-powered radio.

Step 4: Know how to take shelter.

Step 5: Have fourteen days emergency supplies.

Step 6: Know how to prevent and fight fires.

Step 7: Know first aid and home nursing.

Step 8: Know emergency cleanliness.

Step 9: Know how to get rid of radioactive dust.

Step 10: Know your municipal plans.

Step 11: Have a plan for your family and yourself.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2011 06:54

Ajatshatru wrote:Some random thoughts that come to my mind (after a scenario of a 50-100 parmanu attack, as envisaged in this thread):

..

6. Long term planning of building 'X' number of parmanu shelters in each state and the cost of building such shelters etc.

There is, in my view, a pisko barrier in the planning and implementation of such ideas. To sell the idea politically it is necessary to create a widespread fear of nuclear attack among the general population. For that, it must become the policy of at least one major political party and they must have the facts in hand about Pakistani nukes and the threats to India.

The other thing is that such a political move (to inform and create awareness/fear) of an irrational Pakistani nuclear attack will have a blowback in several ways. First there could be a public outcry to out-do Pakistan and China in terms of deliverable bombs so that their complete destruction is assured. This will put pressure on any desire to maintain a recessed deterrent. Secondly opponents of nuclear weapons will set off a counter political movement to discredit those who want to "create nuclear war paranoia"

But once Pandora's box is opened it is opened and there will be no return to the days before it was opened. So I think it is well worth bringing the subject into the public discussion domain in India.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 10 Mar 2011 11:40

For a Tier-1 city like Mumbai with an apartment culture, residents would prefer to have a underground nuclear shelter in their own apartments. Which means that, if the parking area for the apartment is on ground floor, the nuclear shelter would be a 'no-windows' basement. However, for apartments having a basement as a car-park area would have to have a nuclear shelter 2 floors underground. Cost of construction is atleast 3x times for these depths. This would have to be paid for on a regular monthly basis by tenants or would form part of the selling price if one is buying an apartment, even during peace time.

I agree that money does not matter in talks of life and death but how does one come to terms with the sharply jacked up real-estate prices when nuclear shelters are in place.

How does one come to terms with the above situation in a Tier-2 city like Mysore where the earning power and piskology of people is different from Mumbai? People from emerging cities like Mysore become fidgety and fickle minded when faced with such situations.

I am not taking Bangalore into consideration as the demographics there are different, people can adapt quicker to such a development there.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Mar 2011 13:12

Tax Benefits for Nuclear Shelters

Klaus wrote:I agree that money does not matter in talks of life and death but how does one come to terms with the sharply jacked up real-estate prices when nuclear shelters are in place.

I think tax-benefits is the way to go!

Anybody who owns an apartment or an house with an attached nuclear shelter should get tax benefits.

One can have different categories of nuclear shelters - depending on construction and maintenance costs, its strength, how many people it can service, its various features - and one can get a corresponding rate of tax benefit. Each nuclear shelter is assigned a unique id, and in one's tax form, one can enter that id.

There can be government agencies which can inspect the nuclear shelter, first of all for its quality, for its qualification as a nuclear shelter, but also for its tax benefit category and assigning it an id.

There can be other construction companies which can be certified as capable of constructing nuclear shelters, and only they can be allowed to construct such. This would encourage many construction companies to earn themselves this certification.

The tax benefit angle itself would become a catalyst for people to learn more about nuclear fall-out and survival.

Of course, there will be corruption, but that is in every system. With time, one would learn how get a handle on it too!

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 10 Mar 2011 13:23

^^^ In such a scenario, tenants of apartments and individual houses should also get some benefit. How about including their rent money as part of a savings plan as an idea, thereby fetching them some tax-benefits as well!

In ancient India, reputed ayurveda and unani practitioners at the village level used to travel from door to door inoculating the general populace, watching out for newborns etc. What if the same model can be replicated today wherein even retired hakims and doctors have medicines (morphine included) to take care of gangrenous limbs and possible amputations to carry out after an attack?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Mar 2011 17:15

One cannot really handle such attacks, one has to focus on deterring them. Consider a scenario in which a terrorist group is handed a nuke by some intelligence agency. How can this be deterred.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Mar 2011 17:18

ramana wrote:You need tonnes of antibioics to ward of infection and loss of imunization due to radiatation damage. No need for guns for all as that leads to more deaths.

One does need decentralized civil defense mechanisms ... how can looting and a free-for-all be prevented if communication systems and administrative machinery has collapsed.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Mar 2011 18:20

India's Nuclear Doctrine

Any singular nuclear attack on India, invites India's retaliation against Pakistan, which is complete and comprehensive!
Any retaliatory nuclear attack by Pakistan on India, invites India's retaliation against all parties that helped Pakistan build the bomb - namely China, Saudi Arabia!
Any large scale nuclear attack on India, invites India's retaliation against both Pakistan and all those parties, who helped Pakistan build the bomb!

This need not become India's official nuclear doctrine and be declared publicly, but one needs to talk of this so often and especially by respected security experts, that they believe that it is the official albeit undeclared nuclear doctrine of India.

One should push Pakistan's associates to start thinking backwards, starting from a nuclear attack on them by India!

What such a doctrine does is, it requires China and Saudi Arabia first to do their maximum to ensure that Pakistan does not attack India using nuclear materials. Secondly they would be doing their best to prevent Pakistan from developing a credible second/third-strike capability.

Anything more than one nuke on India, should mean India strikes both China and Saudi Arabia using nukes. Saudi Arabia is targeted not because it is home of the two holy mosques of Islam, but rather because they assisted Pakistan in developing the nuclear bombs by financing it.

So basically we are making Pakistan a lethal threat to all Chinese and to all Saudi Arabians, and could involve the holy sands of Arabia to become irradiated, causing much spiritual stress to Muslims all over the world.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Mar 2011 18:39

RajeshA wrote:India's Nuclear Doctrine

China is not the only power that is complicit in Pak nukes. P5 powers may think they can get away with it since Indians will not develop reliable, proven thermonukes.

The goal of any doctrine must be that when potential adversaries game the various scenarios, they should reach the conclusion that they will not survive.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Mar 2011 19:23

Pranav wrote:China is not the only power that is complicit in Pak nukes. P5 powers may think they can get away with it since Indians will not develop reliable, proven thermonukes.

Yes, but if we start telling everybody we will nuke them, then nobody would be taking us seriously.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 10 Mar 2011 19:37

And what if China preempts this move and nukes India right after an Indo-Pak spat goes nuclear?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2011 19:46

Chandragupta wrote:And what if China preempts this move and nukes India right after an Indo-Pak spat goes nuclear?

Well let us first talk about survving a 100 nuke attack. That is what this thread is about - "What if we are nuked". But let's keep it to 50-100 nukes now and move on to 500 nukes after we get this straight.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Mar 2011 19:52

Chandragupta wrote:And what if China preempts this move and nukes India right after an Indo-Pak spat goes nuclear?

Nuking China is not our official policy!

Secondly China is at risk, only if Pakistan uses more than one bomb on India! It is much easier for them to stop Pakistan from second/third strike, and avoid China being hit.

It is also not as if India will not retaliate against China, so something that was a speculation - India hitting at China, would all of a sudden become unavoidable!

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 10 Mar 2011 20:37

Shiv garu, IMHO the most effective way of surviving a nuke bomb attack would be to prevent it beforehand. In current state our nuclear doctrine expects us to be well baked, burned and vapourised before we can pitch in our "disproportionate" response, provided we are in a position to deliver. This is the most absurd expectation from mangoes like me.

I suggest our ND be modified to include, credible intelligence about imminent nuclear attack, as crossing the red line. Credible intelligence of first strike should be treated at par with an event of actual nuclear strike. Therby providing India the option of nuking tattistan under the pretext of self-defence. We need to become more paki than the pakis themselves, if we are to deal with this assymetric stale mate.

Any porki gernail will henceforth be having his balls in his mouth, should he be ordering any integration of nuclear warheads on their delivery systems Or threating India with a nuclear attack, should India retaliate to some pigLet attack or even for the sake of psy ops.

Our ND should not be passive Gandhian literature only, but a very useful psycological tool to keep the abduls guessing of the consequences and fate if they adhere to any nuclear blackmailing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2011 21:05

Narad your points - valid as they may be, need to go in the deterrence thread. This thread is for when all that fails.

My reply to your post is on that thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1044163

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Mar 2011 22:14

Shiv ji I have few questions
. When we talk about 50-100 nukes at India ( presumably and plausably by Pigs and chiggs ) what could be the targets besides the obvious ones, like ND, Mumbai etc.
Are we envisaging more than one nuke on single target?
Can we map the impact radius?
See what are the areas that have more probability of surviving?
What are those areas which could be unaffected?
Out of those areas , which of them would be more suitable for Nuke hardened installations and shelters?
What could be the lead time before attack and how much time do residents need to respond?
How far one could get away from impact area?
What infrastructure do we need just beyond the impact radius?
What about food, water, essential items, communications, medicare, energy , functioning of Govt command and control etc?

I know these questions fall in different categories and could be reclassified as per immediate, intermediate and long term requirement.I am sure from your fist posting, you would be looking for answers for some of these questions.
Before answering them some basic data may be needed.That could be explained by knowledgeable members first.