Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 May 2011 20:39

shiv wrote:
Acharya wrote: Attack by Pakistan is an attack by China on India.
Absolutely. I think there is a need to hit Beijing with Indian nuclear bombs in retaliation for any Pakistani nuclear attack on India. This statement from China (if true) brings out the stark reality that China is Pakistan's current father and lover.

And Unkil is current father and lover of China. That is why Bharat needs its own "Tripurantaka" option.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2011 23:15

If you take down PRC economically then the whole system comes down.

Need to think assymetric.

All this Hindi-Chini bhai bhai will only get you so far. Courting US is also waste as they are joined at the hip to PRC economy and to the TSP Army state.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 May 2011 23:47

^^ Rumour has it that Unkil deployed to protect the kingdoms (& former) as well as Desh north east.
in 2001 - Puntagon was afraid of PRC pulling off a stunt. Alliance?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 00:03

Dont know about that. In 2001, PRC delegation was in Kabul to recognise the Taliban as that seemed to be the massa wish. Recall all those Track II meetings and lobbying by children of US ex-officials?

They got surprised and beat a hasty retreat out of there.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 May 2011 00:10

^^ I was a baccha when all that was taking place

But IOL says that Pentagon expanded - thats when some joint training began between Bharat and Unkil (CIJW programs). Parliamentary testamony gave away the US plans with Nepal - the US began to expand mil training to Nepal and other Kingdoms due to aggressive PRC posture. So sounds like there is some gentlemans agreement for PRC to lay off the kingdoms. Obviously Bharat is the only person that can ensure that happens and provides logistics etc etc for all that. Everything was kept under wraps until a congressional testimony that some chap dropped the info per IOL.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 May 2011 22:02

shyamd wrote:^^ Rumour has it that Unkil deployed to protect the kingdoms (& former) as well as Desh north east.
in 2001 - Puntagon was afraid of PRC pulling off a stunt. Alliance?

PRC is the wild card in this game and when it senses Uncle is weak then it will make the move.
PRC hands and clients have to be cut into small pieces. That is the only solution for the long term.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 May 2011 11:50

Nuclear winter is a real and present danger
Alan Robock
Nature 473, 275–276 (19 May 2011) doi:10.1038/473275a

Models show that even a 'small' nuclear war would cause catastrophic climate change. Such findings must inform policy, says Alan Robock.

In the 1980s, discussion and debate about the possibility of a 'nuclear winter' helped to end the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. As former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2000: “Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honour and morality, to act.”

As a result, the number of nuclear weapons in the world started to fall, from a peak of about 70,000 in the 1980s to a total of about 22,000 today. In another five years that number could go as low as 5,000, thanks to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia, signed on 8 April 2010.

Yet the environmental threat of nuclear war has not gone away. The world faces the prospect of a smaller, but still catastrophic, nuclear conflict. There are now nine nuclear-weapons states. Use of a fraction of the global nuclear arsenal by anyone, from the superpowers to India versus Pakistan, still presents the largest potential environmental danger to the planet by humans.

BETTMANN/CORBIS
Atomic attacks would cause huge city fires, like this one in San Francisco in 1906, and smoke would cool the planet.

That threat is being ignored. One reason for this denial is that the prospect of a nuclear war is so horrific on so many levels that most people simply look away. Two further reasons are myths that persist among the general public: that the nuclear winter theory has been disproved, and that nuclear winter is no longer a threat. These myths need to be debunked.

The term 'nuclear winter', coined by Carl Sagan and his colleagues in a 1983 paper [1] in Science, describes the dramatic effects on the climate caused by smoke from fires ignited by nuclear attacks on cities and industrial areas. In the 1980s my colleagues and I calculated, using the best climate models available at the time, that if one-third of the existing arsenal was used, there would be so much smoke that surface temperatures would plummet below freezing around the world for months, killing virtually all plants and producing worldwide famine. More people could die in China from starvation than in the nations actively bombing each other. As many countries around the world realized that a superpower nuclear war would be a disaster for them, they pressured the superpowers to end their arms race. Sagan did a good job of summarizing the policy impacts [2] in 1984: although weapons were continuing to be built, it would be suicide to use them.

The idea of climatic catastrophe was fought against by those who wanted to keep the nuclear-weapon industry alive, or who supported the growth of nuclear arsenals politically [3]. Scientifically, there was no real debate about the concept, only about the details. In 1986, atmospheric researchers Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs appraising the theory [4] and highlighting what they saw as the patchiness of the effect. They coined the term 'nuclear autumn', noting that it wouldn't be 'winter' everywhere in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. They didn't mean for people to think that it would be all raking leaves and football games, but many members of the public, and some pro-nuclear advocates, preferred to take it that way. The fight over the details of the modelling caused a rift between Sagan and Schneider that never healed. When I bring up the topic of nuclear winter, people invariably tell me that they think the theory has been disproved.

But research continues to support the original concept. By 2007, models had began to approximate a realistic atmosphere up to 80 kilometres above Earth's surface, including the stratosphere and mesosphere. This enabled me, and my coauthors, to calculate for the first time that smoke particles would be heated by the Sun and lifted into the upper stratosphere, where they would stay for many years [5, 6]. So the cooling would last for much longer than we originally thought.

Dark days
Many of those who do accept the nuclear-winter concept think that the scenario applies only to a mass conflict, on a scale no longer conceivable in the modern world. This is also false. A 'small' nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with each using 50 Hiroshima-size bombs (far less than 1% of the current arsenal), if dropped on megacity targets in each country would produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history [5]. Five million tonnes of black carbon smoke would be emitted into the upper troposphere from the burning cities, and then be lofted into the stratosphere by the heat of the Sun. Temperatures would be lower than during the 'Little Ice Age' (1400–1850), during which famine killed millions. For several years, growing seasons would be shortened by weeks in the mid-latitudes (see 'A decade of cooling).

Brian Toon at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Richard Turco at the University of California, Los Angeles, Georgiy Stenchikov at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and I, all of whom were pioneers in nuclear-winter research in the 1980s, have tried, along with our students, to publicize our results. We have published refereed journal articles, popular pieces in Physics Today and Scientific American, a policy forum in Science, and now this article. But Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy, perhaps the two most prominent foreign-policy magazines in English, would not even review articles we submitted. We have had no luck getting attention from the US government. Toon and I visited the US Congress and gave briefings to congressional staff on the subject two years ago, but nothing happened as a result. The US President's science adviser John Holdren has not responded to our requests — in 2009 and more recently — for consideration of new scientific results in US nuclear policy.

The only interest at a national level I have had was somewhat surreal: in September 2010, Fidel Castro summoned me to a conference on nuclear winter in Havana, to help promote his new view that a nuclear conflict would bring about Armageddon. The next day, my talk — the entire 90 minutes including questions — was broadcast on nationwide television in prime time, and appeared on the front page of the two national newspapers in Cuba.

As in the 1980s, it is still too difficult for most people to fully grasp the consequences of a nuclear conflict. But it must be grasped. We scientists must continue to push our results out to the public and to policy-makers, so they can in turn push political will in the direction of disarmament. Just as Gorbachev, armed with the knowledge of nuclear winter, helped to end the cold war, so too can the politicians of today use science to support further reductions in arms. The New START treaty is not enough.

References

1. Turco, R. P., Toon, O. B., Ackerman, T. P., Pollack, J. B. & Sagan, C. Science 222, 1283–1292 (1983).

2. Sagan, C. Foreign Affairs 62, 257–292 (1984).

3. Badash, L. A Nuclear Winter's Tale: Science and Politics in the 1980s (MIT Press, 2009).

4. Thompson, S. L. & Schneider, S. H. Foreign Affairs 64, 981–1005 (1986).

5. Robock, A. et al. Atm. Chem. Phys. 7, 2003–2012 (2007).

6. Robock, A., Oman, L. & Stenchikov, G. L. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D13107 (2007).

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 May 2011 22:17

shiv wrote:Absolutely. I think there is a need to hit Beijing with Indian nuclear bombs in retaliation for any Pakistani nuclear attack on India. This statement from China (if true) brings out the stark reality that China is Pakistan's current father and lover.

The appropriate response would be a standing threat to China, if Pakistan attacks India nuclear or not, as a fall back measure India will take over Tibet by force. All our plans to achieve that needs to be fully exercised on the ground with clear intent. We will simply need the xtra space in the interim to relocate our population. We may not nuke Beijing, but we will certainly para drop troops and move people in. This IMO is more of a real threat than just a MAD option.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 22 May 2011 22:23

We may not nuke Beijing, but we will certainly para drop troops and move people in. This IMO is more of a real threat than just a MAD option.

This is the first time i am hearing equating Pakistani nuke misadventure and physically taking over Tibet. And i must say this is the right first step approach. Paki nukes must be linked to the destabilization of Chinese occupation of Tibet. However this is going to be an escalation and China too might be tempted to join in the Nuke misadventure. We need to also prepare then for the next escalation to Nukes into China. But as a first this is absolutely essential. Physical elimination of Chinese occupation and assets in Tibet.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 May 2011 23:21

Harbans, the intent is mixed but driven by the softer explanation. In the event of a nuke attack on Indian soil from Pakistan, yes there will retaliation of the kind needed for TSP. But surely a large part can still be a wasteland and we need to hedge our bets. So Tibet is fair game, assuming PRC is not be nuked by India or vice versa.

MAD option does not lead to many handles over TSP. This otoh can be a real h&d issue for China and they cannot simply nuke India because we chose to occupy Tibet for safety and ensuring future security. Any escalation from China to nuke, will be an equal hit to heartland of China. They would not want that, it is an even bigger loss for them to allow that. Losing Tibet is not something they would want if they can avoid and hence a good leverage for India to use. But, I cannot imagine that they would defend Tibet at all costs if they can avoid direct nuke hits to their industrial centers.

The argument we need to make in public forums is Tibet will be our safe house for civilizational continuity.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 May 2011 23:26

Bade wrote:

The argument we need to make in public forums is Tibet will be our safe house for civilizational continuity.

This is the right approach and also make sure that enough Chinese understand the meaning of this.
India will have to start a fresh lebensraum and spread this to rest of Asia.

territory believed to be necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency

space required for life, growth, or activity

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 May 2011 23:47

Bade,
Also if TSP and PRC alliance is formalized and a joint attack is carried out then NFU goes out of the window.

From deterring nuke use (by way of second strike) war prevention has to be next goal of India nuke posture. This way all of them realize war is not an option.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 May 2011 00:15

Yes, of course a joint attack or even intent to do that as a formally signed alliance, throws NFU and makes MAD a real possibility. So they (PRC) need to be weeded out of such alliance making formally.

The idea is with a limited war imposed on us by TSP with or without PRC consent, we will impose some hurt and loss for PRC too. I would think PRC signing up with TSP in a formal alliance would be idiotic from their pov. Only TSP benefits if at all from this posture.

We need to survive a nuclear war, and if it takes occupation of safe territories from nukes and fallout (Himalayan high wall being the Great wall of India) to ensure that then we should plan for it. The goal is to avoid fighting a nuclear war with PRC directly, but we still should be willing to cross certain lines but not all the way through unless provoked even more.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 23 May 2011 13:35

Losing Tibet is not something they would want if they can avoid and hence a good leverage for India to use. But, I cannot imagine that they would defend Tibet at all costs if they can avoid direct nuke hits to their industrial centers.

The argument we need to make in public forums is Tibet will be our safe house for civilizational continuity.
...
The goal is to avoid fighting a nuclear war with PRC directly, but we still should be willing to cross certain lines but not all the way through unless provoked even more.

I have been quite vocal in forums that Tibet should be our safe house for civilizational continuity for some time. However i see what you say making immense sense in case of Nuke conflict with Pakistan.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 23 May 2011 17:48

RamaY wrote:
shiv wrote: Absolutely. I think there is a need to hit Beijing with Indian nuclear bombs in retaliation for any Pakistani nuclear attack on India. This statement from China (if true) brings out the stark reality that China is Pakistan's current father and lover.
And Unkil is current father and lover of China. That is why Bharat needs its own "Tripurantaka" option.

interesting you brought in tripurantaka option.. what point is the convergence point of the three cities?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 May 2011 19:00

People can disagree. But IMO it is PoK and the Larger JK. That is where the interests of Tripurasuras meet.

Hit it hard and hold it and you destroy their convergence point. For that India needs to prepare well and prepare hard. Need to hoard lot of money, oil, weapons and personnel before they create the right convergence moment {If you read puranas often it is Asuras themselves that create the right and periodic circumstances for their demise}

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 23 May 2011 19:37

RamaY ji & Atri ji, I dont think a zone lying within Uttara-patha can be mutually compatible with zone lying within Dakshina-patha, i.e. we cannot combine and make a "grand-plan" to eliminate asuras who have control of dharmic territory in 2 different realms.

There is a post made by Acharya-san in Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat thread, I have x-posted it with kaments in Distorted history thread, bliss to re-read. Link to post

IMO Tripurantaka strategy is not viable, however Asuras can coordinate between the various realms.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 25 May 2011 13:20

Bade wrote:
shiv wrote:Absolutely. I think there is a need to hit Beijing with Indian nuclear bombs in retaliation for any Pakistani nuclear attack on India. This statement from China (if true) brings out the stark reality that China is Pakistan's current father and lover.
The appropriate response would be a standing threat to China, if Pakistan attacks India nuclear or not, as a fall back measure India will take over Tibet by force. All our plans to achieve that needs to be fully exercised on the ground with clear intent. We will simply need the xtra space in the interim to relocate our population. We may not nuke Beijing, but we will certainly para drop troops and move people in. This IMO is more of a real threat than just a MAD option.

In a scenario where India has been hit by a nuclear attack from Pakistan, do we have the military capacity to open a second, conventional, front in Tibet and "take it over"?

AFAIK, we are currently at a stage where we just might be able to handle an 'offense in the West, defence up North' strategy. I doubt this can switch to an 'offense in the West, offence in the North' strategy, particularly after a nuclear attack. And, how would that help us survive a 50-100 nuke weapon attack - the subject of this thread?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 21:48

Surviving also should include how one plans to re-start life after an extensive nuke exchange. Look from that point of view. Just saying we can fight only on one front and defend maybe another makes little sense. Assume TSP is decimated by the exchange and is hardly livable. And this will be true for most of Northern Indian cities/villages. So you need to have an action plan before it takes place, or to deal with it in the aftermath. Once it is done there is little that will be left standing to build from.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 26 May 2011 11:22

Bade, I agree. Indeed, I presumed this thread to deal with exactly that - surviving, i.e. continuing life and activities, after a massive nuclear attack. My posts on the previous page outlined a few steps on this.

What I'm questioning is (a) I'm unable to understand how attacking and taking over Tibet after a nuclear attack is part of this 'surviving' (b) even if it were somehow part of surviving, it seems infeasible to me given current and projected military capabilities.

Btw, I disagree with your comment about the damage to North India. In a nuclear exchange, the targets of priority for Pakistan would be key population and economic centres, ports, key economic centres, and of course key military installations. South India has an ample share of these and with increasing missile ranges, they will be hit. All of India will be damaged. As a gruesome example, it would make more sense to an enemy to take out B'lore-Hyd-Pune-Mumbai rather than say Lucknow-Patna-Varanasi.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 May 2011 19:32

India should also seriously think of relocating the Indian population to a region less irradiated and contaminated.

Actually Indians should be taking ships, each Indian with a gun and armadas should go in all directions, and those who sail to Saudi Arabia should carry two guns and a few machetes per person!

The whole of West Asia should be filled with Indians, and they should mow down the natives, take their women and start a new life of Dharma! The main job of the Indian Navy would become the transfer of Indian populations to the mega malls of Saudi Arabia, Dubai and beyond.

And everywhere they set foot, they will build a Hindu temple!

The Indians will become the hornets, who got smoked out of their nests! And everybody in West Asia, then should say a prayer for the last time as a homage to their culture on its deathbed.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 19:56

Vinit, it looks like RajeshA has already encapsulated the thought in the first line of his post above. Declaring the intent to re-populate Tibet in the event of a nuke war also plays a part in deterrence in avoiding an exchange which is the better solution always.

If you are at TSP end of decision making, when there are so many targets nearby in the northern part of the country why would you bother with hitting deep in the south. Now if as you say the South is also going to get decimated, then the need to re-populate other parts of the world by force become even more necessary than before. So a nuke exchange to win or to continue civilization will require taking over other lands. We should plan for such a contingency.

Why do you think defense department spends time on drastic climate change studies (less than 10 yr time scale) ? This is more benign than a nuke exchange scenario.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2011 20:04

Why so much distress?

If even a single Inch of Bharat is radiated, the centers of all other non-Indic faiths must become radio-active till next ice-age. That also applies to mahajanapads in all Adharmic lands; without any exception. Bharat's Ari*s purpose must be just that. Those Ari* must be equipped with everything that is required to ensure that outcome.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 20:19

MAD is not a solution RamaY. It makes little sense to make everyone losers.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 26 May 2011 20:22

Bade wrote:MAD is not a solution RamaY. It makes little sense to make everyone losers.

if YOU are a loser, then why should YOU care about the others??

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 20:23

^^ ??

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 May 2011 20:34

Deployment of 2k Bums is the price of peace and sound sleep for the people of Aryavart. Let all the powers be think and decide about linking their own security to Poak wishes.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 20:39

All that is good and fine, but raising the game a bit more by threatening to take away pristine surviving lands. If you cannot stand up somewhere alive, then you cannot claim victory.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2011 21:30

Bade janab.

TSP is ba*tard child of the queen, unkil and the holy djinn. They are not pristine surviving lands.

See it this way, with Aryavart gone, who will protect the pristine nature and other life forms from these savages?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 22:05

TSP's fatherhood should not determine whether the people of India should take to MAD to prove a point. Unkil, queen and the rest are not going to take Ari's brunt in silence. All I am saying is there is another game to deter TSP without limiting to current boundaries of Aryavarta which I assume is India

without Kaurava lands next door.

There is plenty of pristine land to take over to prosper, it does not have to limit to current boundaries in a win or lose all situation. Taking over Tibet pokes a finger at the benefactor of TSP to stop the slide towards lose all situation. Of course one could perhaps easily take over vast swaths of Africa with little resistance, but that gives no leverage.

Unkil, Aunty and relatives do not fight to lose, even MAD was just a posture during cold war. Unkil and the bear did not plan to destroy the whole world, but to just to decimate the enemy and repopulate elsewhere. They had the means to do it, does India is the question. We need to plan for that to show real intent to use Ari boomers.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2011 22:26

Bade janab,

Your ideas are even grandeur than MAD in a way… How do you plan to take on Tibet while letting PoK go?

You are also missing a central point. The land of current Aryavarta is as important as the people that live in it. Why do you think tens of thousands of people visit Amarnath every year in spite of KM barbarians? Bharat doesn’t mean just its people; it means the land, flora-fauna, rivers, mountains which is more important than the people. Why do you think all these things have life/feelings/history of their own in our scriptures? They are past/future lives

of our forefathers…

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 May 2011 22:43

RamaY, where did I say let India go ? What is the point in taking over POK if it is also gone (as in cannot use immediately due to nuclear fallout) from all the nuke exchanges. Tibet is not TSP domain, but in PRC hands. The threat to take it over by conventional weapons is TSP attacks us forces PRC hand. Now if PRC wants to nuke India for that, then it gets in return too. But why escalate more ? They will either force TSP to back-off before an exchange, or let Tibet into Indian hands to avoid an exchange with India on their part. Of course the game does not end with Tibet, we will need more.

We have MAD (or credible minimum assured destruction) as of now with TSP. What did it gain us, we got constrained even in Kargil. Now you want to expand that to rest of the world and you think the rest are idiots sitting around twiddling thumb to let that happen. Sorry boss it will not cut. Aryavarta and rest will be gone long before even TSP does something stupid, with such posturing from India. And the only losers will be your Aryavarta !

Now as to how to implement all that, is for the generals and MOD to decide and fund.

Beyond my pay scale and training.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 26 May 2011 22:44

How about a discussion of the economic aspects and risks of building the capabilities discussed here? Maybe in burkha forum?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2011 23:37

Bade wrote:RamaY, where did I say let India go ? What is the point in taking over POK if it is also gone (as in cannot use immediately due to nuclear fallout) from all the nuke exchanges. Tibet is not TSP domain, but in PRC hands. The threat to take it over by conventional weapons is TSP attacks us forces PRC hand. Now if PRC wants to nuke India for that, then it gets in return too. But why escalate more ? They will either force TSP to back-off before an exchange, or let Tibet into Indian hands to avoid an exchange with India on their part. Of course the game does not end with Tibet, we will need more.

We have MAD (or credible minimum assured destruction) as of now with TSP. What did it gain us, we got constrained even in Kargil. Now you want to expand that to rest of the world and you think the rest are idiots sitting around twiddling thumb to let that happen. Sorry boss it will not cut. Aryavarta and rest will be gone long before even TSP does something stupid, with such posturing from India. And the only losers will be your Aryavarta !

Now as to how to implement all that, is for the generals and MOD to decide and fund. Beyond my pay scale and training.

Bade sahab!

couple of logical fallacies in your post.

First is that you can start a conventional attack on Tibet and grab it from PRC and assume that PRC wouldn't go nuclear. If TSP got its nukes from PRC and USA, then whose idea it was to nuke India in case of life-threatening Indian aggression? Now if they wanted TSP to nuke India if it is life threatening to Pakistand, can you imagine what PRC would do when you try to cut Tibet from them (that is severing their own life)?

Nobody is calling anyone idiot here. All I am proposing is to have a big danda and show it to the entire world that you are ready to use it against any/everyone if they threaten you or your people. It has nothing to do with what others want, think or will do. It is our preparedness. Preparedness precedes action, not the other way around. Look how silly it is looking when MoD and GoI are talking about PRC's presence in PoK and trying to be prepared for that eventuality after it happened.

Second logical fallacy is that by definition 2nd strike capability is expected to survive a preemptive strike. If Bharat's capability cannot survive a preemptive attack (be it TSP or PRC or Unkil) then Bharat doesn't have a 2nd strike capability; thus no MAD threat.

My proposal is to ensure that no Asuravarta exists without a safe, strong and united Aryavarta. And most importantly making it clear to the Asuravarta.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 May 2011 00:45

RamaY sahab,

Preparedness is one thing but showing clear intent in method of use is another. Without preparedness nothing counts and that is understood by all.

Once you show or begin to show intent to use your nuclear danda on all not just TSP, but Unkil, Aunty and PRC, tell me first why Unkil (forget the rest for now) will not pre-empt your danda from use against anyone. If you cannot pre-empt Unkil, then the nuclear danda, the way you plan to use will be removed before its full power is established.

I see bigger flaw in your logic that the Indian danda will remain to be bandied about at everyone, one and all just because TSP went postal. Your deterrence idea seem to rest on this pivotal point. I would think if Unkil gets wind of the idea that TSP is going to go postal, and Unkil cannot prevent it from doing so, then the logical thing for Unkil to do knowing how RamaY doctrine would force India, is to nuke India pre-emptively. Unkil cares only for self as you would agree. So India will face attack from the postal TSP as well as Unkil covering his back. So that doctrine takes you only so far, in fact sets you back more than just a TSP act followed by only a return retaliation to TSP land.

Tibet as I claim, is small enough in the scheme of things for PRC to be rattled to engage in a huge escalation, but loss of h&d is sufficient enough to be parted with easily, and hence enough motivation to prevent TSP from going for the buttons provided by PRC in the first place.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 May 2011 00:46

India's doctrine should be very simple. If Pakistan attacks, everybody in Pakistan, down to the last dog should die, even if it is the last thing that the last Indian does.

Secondly there is going to be no last Indian, because Indians are going to be cockroaches, and no matter what anybody throws at us, we will survive, and not just survive but also thrive, and that we shall be doing in the lands of all those who enabled Pakistan to get the bombs in the first place.

Thirdly as the Germans say: "was einem nicht umbringt, macht einem nur noch härter" - if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger onlee! And with that strength we will all take one simple pledge - all the lands of Pakistan's benefactors would belong to Indians. They would pay for the hell they brought upon us. Either they will become Dharmic, or they too will share the fate of Pakistanis.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 May 2011 00:57

Recent Paki development demonstrated once and for all Unkil's napunsakatva. If unkil is worried about taking out Paki ba**s before they fall into non-state actors' hands, then he cannot preempt Bharat. All he can do is scuttle our progress.

Nope. It is upto unkil if he want to take on Paki's postal behavior or be prepared to face Bharat's retaliation.

RamaY option makes Pakin nukes a unkil/prc issue, more than Bharat's problem. Unkil/PRC are the root cause of TSP and they should take responsibility to address it.

Coming to Unkil/PRC preempting Bharat. If that is so simple, Bharat should be able to preempt Pakis today, right now.

I can't say anything if you think Tibet is less valuable to PRC than Pakistan. I also do not understand how it would stop Pakis being Pakis.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 May 2011 01:46

I agree nothing can prevent TSP going postal if the buttons are entirely theirs to use and not controlled by PRC or Unkil, but us going postal over it on all others does not lead to useful and meaningful solutions, with CMD and all. We can still cause enough pain for others in exchange for us loosing useful landmass. We take what is theirs too who did not have to suffer after taking care of TSP.

Why would Unkil, Aunty or PRC come to protect TSP or harm us if we just take out TSP and ask others to hold off. CMD should allow us that in the least and simultaneous takeover of untouched lands by "south-asian" nuclear pappi-jhappi. Others give us land to inhabit or take our "pappi-jhappi" too !

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 May 2011 02:07

The other point to be highlighted is that Tibet is the only contiguous landmass to India, separated by a high wall which can be both an immediate benefit and hard to cross depending on preparations in advance for re-population. Sailing out leads to Africa as a last measure of survival for the masses and the nearest point with large swaths of land with some Indian presence already in place. Middle East would be ideal too for a takeover with infrastructure in place as RajeshA already mentioned.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 27 May 2011 10:37

We're talking about surviving a nuclear attack. Posts about "pre-empting" and "showing strengths" and "carrying a big stick and nuking everyone in sight" are all fine, but the context of this thread should be (IMHO) that despite all that, a nuclear attack has taken place . What next? Yes, we will retaliate/wipe off Pak/etc etc, of course - but how do we survive?

I disagree with relocation, whether to Tibet, or sailing off, or whatever else is being proposed. My reasons below.

Firstly, India will still exist. Worst case, say Pakistan uses 100 nuclear weapons averaging 25KT on India. This is worst case because I'm assuming they have that many weapons, all of them are available, all of them can be deployed and delivered, and there are zero failures, zero intercepts.

Even with that, its hardly as if all of India will be an irradiated landmass. Far from it. Yes, the damage would be immense, and we'd have 1-3 cr deaths with the loss of perhaps all major cities. But, there is enough landmass for the survivors to remain. Hiroshima wasn't abandoned after WW2.

Second - and most important - impracticality. Are people seriously suggesting that the surviving 95 crore (at least) Indians would relocate? And to Tibet of all places, which can barely support a twentieth of that number given its terrain, and is in Chinese hands anyway?

Or on ships - how many would ships would be needed? Which country would take you in? Look at the relocation of the Jews after WW2 - relocating half a milion people took decades, forget 95 crore. And do you really want to live as a refugee?

Suggestions that are more practical would be useful.

There is a definite probability, hopefully low, that a weak/fanatic Pakistani regime might engage in an all-out nuclear attack on India, and perhaps this thread could come up with ideas that would actually help the country do something in the aftermath. Yes, its taken for granted that we will retaliate and destroy Pakistan. Now, what can be done for the surviving Indians?