Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby harbans » 27 May 2011 12:03

Yes, its taken for granted that we will retaliate and destroy Pakistan.

That part i am not very sure about.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RajeshA » 27 May 2011 12:37

Vinit wrote: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?


Does it mean, that a nuclear attack would mean that India would lose all its military and merchant navy? Does it mean it that India would lose all its financial assets in India and invested and saved in banks all over the world, money with which more ships can be bought at a moment's notice? So there will be ships around, and whenever the situation arises, more ships would have entered service!

Secondly, India would still be technologically advanced, and if we put our minds to it would be able to put up desalination plants and solar energy farms anywhere we want, including in whichever lands we migrate to.

Sure, much of India would be livable, but somebody would have to pay for the land they helped irradiate - either the payment would be in kind, their cities too would be irradiated or in compensation with equal amount of land for those Indians whose lands were contaminated.

So either Chinese cities in the East Coast would burn one way or the other - either through attacks by Indian forces, or through Indian "non-state" actors. Or China would have to consider giving Tibet, Qinghai and Yunnan to India. That India is serious about the compensation, would have to be impressed upon China by taking one or two cities in China down. If there is going to be war, then there is going to be war. China cannot escape its responsibility for proliferation by trying to play invisible!

The second front India needs to open, it towards the Arabian Peninsula. We will be sending at least a 100 million Indians to the Arabian Peninsula over the next 6-7 years, and they will see to it that there is not a single Arab alive, and the whole landscape is dotted by Hindu temples, all the way to Jerusalem. It is not a question of whether somebody lets us in or not. We will barge in on shoulders of our numbers and military strength. We will turn the land green and the map saffron! The Arabs cannot escape the responsibility of sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Indian Subcontinent and hope to that the storm would pass them by!

Thirdly every Pakjabi man, woman and child regardless of where ever they may be living on the face of the earth or beyond, will be butchered till there is no trace of that qaum any more on this earth. They will be safe neither in Queenstan, nor in Amreeka, nor in Canada, nor in Norway, simply nowhere. India would be putting up killer commandos in all these lands, and their work would be of hunting down the Pakis, and cremating them alive. No Paki caught would ever end up in a grave or have his last rites read. They will simply be fed to the pigs!

And now Pakilurkers, go ahead and enrich more uranium!

Samudragupta
BRFite
Posts: 625
Joined: 12 Nov 2010 23:49
Location: Some place in the sphere

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Samudragupta » 27 May 2011 13:46

RajeshA wrote:
Vinit wrote: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?


Does it mean, that a nuclear attack would mean that India would lose all its military and merchant navy? Does it mean it that India would lose all its financial assets in India and invested and saved in banks all over the world, money with which more ships can be bought at a moment's notice? So there will be ships around, and whenever the situation arises, more ships would have entered service!

Secondly, India would still be technologically advanced, and if we put our minds to it would be able to put up desalination plants and solar energy farms anywhere we want, including in whichever lands we migrate to.

Sure, much of India would be livable, but somebody would have to pay for the land they helped irradiate - either the payment would be in kind, their cities too would be irradiated or in compensation with equal amount of land for those Indians whose lands were contaminated.

So either Chinese cities in the East Coast would burn one way or the other - either through attacks by Indian forces, or through Indian "non-state" actors. Or China would have to consider giving Tibet, Qinghai and Yunnan to India. That India is serious about the compensation, would have to be impressed upon China by taking one or two cities in China down. If there is going to be war, then there is going to be war. China cannot escape its responsibility for proliferation by trying to play invisible!

The second front India needs to open, it towards the Arabian Peninsula. We will be sending at least a 100 million Indians to the Arabian Peninsula over the next 6-7 years, and they will see to it that there is not a single Arab alive, and the whole landscape is dotted by Hindu temples, all the way to Jerusalem. It is not a question of whether somebody lets us in or not. We will barge in on shoulders of our numbers and military strength. We will turn the land green and the map saffron! The Arabs cannot escape the responsibility of sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Indian Subcontinent and hope to that the storm would pass them by!

Thirdly every Pakjabi man, woman and child regardless of where ever they may be living on the face of the earth or beyond, will be butchered till there is no trace of that qaum any more on this earth. They will be safe neither in Queenstan, nor in Amreeka, nor in Canada, nor in Norway, simply nowhere. India would be putting up killer commandos in all these lands, and their work would be of hunting down the Pakis, and cremating them alive. No Paki caught would ever end up in a grave or have his last rites read. They will simply be fed to the pigs!

And now Pakilurkers, go ahead and enrich more uranium!



RajeshA ji,
I hope this level of Dance of Rudra will not be rrequired, We are on our way to control the waterways connecting the East and the West...Both the East and the West does not want this dance on their landmass... :)

sanjeevpunj
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 04 Sep 2009 13:10

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby sanjeevpunj » 27 May 2011 13:56

If India can be seen as the Crouching Tiger, and China the Hidden Dragon, Pakistan surely must be the Stinking Boar that rushes forth, trying to cause a fight between the Tiger and Dragon, so that he can eventually enjoy the spoils.Pakistan even today is playing this strategy, ensuring Indo-china relations remain difficult. A polarisation is possibly occuring in the Asian region. India is informally aligned with USA,Israel, Russia and Europe, and China is worked up and wanting to align with Pakistan,Iran,Saudi Arabia and N Korea to form the proverbial "Axis of Evil". Such a polarization would lead to not just a WW-III, but the First Nuclear War, with Nukes flying around the earth to their targets, eventually leaving no one alive except in remote pockets of forests, mountains,villages removed from cities and other strategic targets.This is the Armageddon scenario,emerging as it were, in a most scary and ominous fashion.Almost all major cities and towns would be at the receiving end of some or the other nuke warhead from somewhere or the other in the world.This is a worst case scenario.The other scenario is efforts to prevent Armageddon and Apocalypse from actually manifesting into a reality.Peace efforts are often considered weak and womanly, but in such efforts lies the story of survival of the future generations.The question of surviving such an Apocalypse is so remote, we may have a handful of villagers left on earth saying"Duh I didnt know these cities would dissappear so soon, I wanted to see the city life!"

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RamaY » 27 May 2011 19:14

Bade wrote: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.


Bade ji,

I think you are assuming that Pakistan will throw everything they have in their first strike making Bharat unlivable.

But Shivji's calculations demonstrated that it is impossible to nuke entire Bharat :(( :((

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Bade » 27 May 2011 20:03

Yes, with 50-100 bums it can take out at most 50 cities being made unusable. But the distribution of cities in the northern plains is quite even, so the patches left out untouched will remain largely disconnected. Movement across regions and to safe patches will be next to impossible. So relocation will remain a necessity, if not of the entire population even at 30-40% level that survives. This is what we should tell everyone we will do upfront. So it is in their interest to stop this from happening to them. The price they pay will be real not some chai-biskoot sessions post-war at UN HQ.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby ramana » 27 May 2011 20:12

Due to the dispersal of the CMD, someone has to taek out about 125 locations. And to be sure you need two per target. That is beyond even PRC capability for they will denude themselves against other sharks. The second strike doctrine makes it expensive for the attacker while the elephant plods along.

But that doesnt mean the elephant will not stampede if it finds some hyena trying to ready for such a strike.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RamaY » 27 May 2011 20:17

Badeji,

a map of Indian cities.

Image

You can superimpose population map, road and rail networks etc on this to get a picture.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Bade » 27 May 2011 20:46

RamaY, you must have seen this one before. There must be a better resolution one. Look how dense Indian settlements are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ts_Map.jpg

A much better one which gives a good idea.
http://geology.com/articles/night-satel ... -night.jpg

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RamaY » 27 May 2011 22:25

Bade ji,

Assuming a 10 mile impact radius a 100 nuke attack would affect 2.5% of India's land area.

Yes it would impact the urban population the most, perhaps killing/hurting 40-50 million people. But by smart positioning its infrastructure rest of India can remain a significant force.

India must hurt all the perpetrators bad enough that the rest of India can gets enough time to stand up and rebuild. Perhaps 10-15 years.

That is why India needs laaarge bums for its 2nd strike capacity.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Bade » 27 May 2011 22:42

Hey no harm in being a bania and bargaining for more even when hit below the belt. :)

It is dual purpose only, the threat of creating land seeking refugees with state support to avert the catastrophe and if it happens executing a takeover as compensation. It is all for peace and progress and general well being of the world and as Dharmic as one can get. Now will the rest of the world start shooting at refugees if not backed with Indian state's remaining military power ?

I know Vinit's initial question remain unanswered so far. But the clean up and recovery in Sendai-Fukushima region is a good starting point. The havoc from the Tsunami damage is a good case study and the on going recovery. Scale it up from there for bums going boom.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2474
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby VinodTK » 29 May 2011 03:16

Interview with Air Marshal T. M. Asthana; He was first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command. Gives some insight to Indian thinking.

Bomb from Pak: We will hit back
Q. Last Sunday, terrorists in Pakistan attacked the Mehran naval base near Karachi and destroyed two sophisticated maritime surveillance and attack aircraft. This has led to fears that Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile and fissile material are no longer safe from theft by militants. Is India at particular risk of a possible terror strike using nuclear materials? What is our response mechanism like in such a scenario?
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.

Q. Have scenarios of this nature been discussed in government in your experience?
A. Of course.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21195
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Prem » 29 May 2011 06:49

Loss of life for enemies must be equal or more than Indian but regardless of these numbers no Poak or Arab man or animal shall see day light and there shall be no sign left that they ever existed . This outght to be MAD with these players. The day India dare , they all will be scared to pair with Poakland.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby harbans » 29 May 2011 10:55

A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.


Is this the sort of thinking prevailing in our strategists? We are inviting nuclear catastrophe.

1. This fellow has assumed Paki terror groups have no GOP/ PA/ ISI link.
2. So 9 out of 10 nuclear attacks by 'non state' actors will be met with conventional respose.
3. Assumes a Phone call to Paki leadership/ PA/ ISI will do the trick and allow India to take response.
4. 1-3 come to nought if Paki threaten like before (Parliament, Kargil, 26/11) a full scale nuclear response for India hitting back in response to a terrorist activity from Paki soil.

WKKs don't realize they are unwittingly inviting nuclear catastrophe on India.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby shiv » 29 May 2011 12:06

harbans wrote:
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.


Is this the sort of thinking prevailing in our strategists? We are inviting nuclear catastrophe.

1. This fellow has assumed Paki terror groups have no GOP/ PA/ ISI link.
2. So 9 out of 10 nuclear attacks by 'non state' actors will be met with conventional respose.
3. Assumes a Phone call to Paki leadership/ PA/ ISI will do the trick and allow India to take response.
4. 1-3 come to nought if Paki threaten like before (Parliament, Kargil, 26/11) a full scale nuclear response for India hitting back in response to a terrorist activity from Paki soil.

WKKs don't realize they are unwittingly inviting nuclear catastrophe on India.


No harbans. This is a very well thought out response. It is easy to give a Paki resonse that is fine for BRF "We will nuke the shit out of Pakis". This man has to think before saying anything and when he speaks it need not be the truth but should not get Pakis or others shitting brix when the time for that has not come. His words are carefully selected.

What he says is more scary to Pakis than one might think.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby kmc_chacko » 29 May 2011 17:22

If we survived then we can think of rehabilitation otherwise not to worry. . . . .

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RajeshA » 29 May 2011 17:53

shiv wrote:
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.
harbans wrote:Is this the sort of thinking prevailing in our strategists? We are inviting nuclear catastrophe.

1. This fellow has assumed Paki terror groups have no GOP/ PA/ ISI link.
2. So 9 out of 10 nuclear attacks by 'non state' actors will be met with conventional respose.
3. Assumes a Phone call to Paki leadership/ PA/ ISI will do the trick and allow India to take response.
4. 1-3 come to nought if Paki threaten like before (Parliament, Kargil, 26/11) a full scale nuclear response for India hitting back in response to a terrorist activity from Paki soil.

WKKs don't realize they are unwittingly inviting nuclear catastrophe on India.

No harbans. This is a very well thought out response. It is easy to give a Paki resonse that is fine for BRF "We will nuke the shit out of Pakis". This man has to think before saying anything and when he speaks it need not be the truth but should not get Pakis or others shitting brix when the time for that has not come. His words are carefully selected.

What he says is more scary to Pakis than one might think.


I too think, there is some merit in this approach. If India is attacked by some terrorist group, say in a limited way using a dirty nuclear bomb, and our nuclear doctrine says unequivocally that we too would retaliate with nuclear weapons, and
  1. the nuclear weapon yield would be decided by India,
  2. the point of attack would be decided by India,
  3. the time of attack would be decided by India, and
  4. the details would not be shared with Pakistan, but

we are willing to give Pakistani State benefit of the doubt, and not engage in an all-out nuclear exchange but a suitable response where we take out some population center, or some terrorist hub, or some military base, and we will leave it at that.

We inform the Pakistani Government that the response is coming, and our response extracts 10 times the damage, and we leave it at that Then it could put the Pakistani Establishment in a quandary.

Either they risk being completely glassed or they take the hit on one of their key cities, leaving the rest to survive and suffer.

It helps India because by giving Pakistan a chance to escape total destruction, we are avoiding escalation and saving ourselves much of the damage that can be caused to our own nation.

We are making nuclear war manageable! They lose 10x what we lose in our retaliation, but they survive and we survive, and may be they learn (or may be not).

The message gets to Pakistanis that their nuclear weapons do not stop India from conventional or nuclear retaliation and they only increase the chances of Pakistan paying a heavy penalty for possessing them as they can fall into the hands of "non-state actors", leading to a retaliation! All this possibly leading to disarmament of Pakistan.

India too would be far more willing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation, if we knew the chances are not bad that it does not lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. My fear is that after a dirty bomb, the Indian Government becomes paralyzed due to fear of retaliating with nukes, and does the same nautanki it did after Mumbai 26/11.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2011 17:54

AoA: Large scale NBC bunkers can be built under the name of religious practice. That way it is easier to ordain on the people to run to God and save yourself. This is the only way to operationalize a mass safety plan.

at the very least, we need to shiber for the maal.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2474
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby VinodTK » 29 May 2011 19:57

Scary Sunday reading
5 minutes to nuclear Jihad?
It is a wonder that in 26/11, the jihadis after successfully breaching three layers of Indian maritime defence, inactive in all but name - the outer zone manned by the Indian Navy, the coastal zone patrolled by the Coast Guard, and the inner-most defensive line policed by Harbour patrols — merely shot up a couple of hotels when they could have done something really spectacular — a “Pearl Harbour” by sinking a good part of the Western Fleet anchored at the time in the Mumbai naval base, only a few hundred meters from where they landed.
:
The much easier route to nuclear terrorism is the ‘dirty bomb’ — a radiation diffusion device (RDD) that can be configured by terrorists. All that is needed is a bundle of spent nuclear fuel (featuring radio-isotopes such as cobalt 60, strontium 90 and cesium 137) powering X-ray machines, gamma ray cameras, etc., used extensively in the health and industrial sectors, a smuggled ‘pencil’ of fuel at a time. These can then be tied together and fitted into a shoebox, and the entire package blown up with a conventional explosive, such as dynamite. Voila! You have an RDD going off — a small explosion followed by release of radioactivity which, depending on ambient conditions, can spread with the wind and quickly affect an entire city. While few people may be directly killed by the explosion, thousands will be exposed — many hundreds fatally — to the radioactive plume drifting across the city with the breeze. Imagine the mass hysteria, breakdown of law and order, and the quite considerable costs of decontamination in any densely-packed Indian city! Worse, the nuclear material is immeasurably difficult to account for, a condition not helped by India’s lack of a comprehensive nuclear material accounting (NUMAC) system. This means that it is easier for the LeT to rely on radicalized Indian Muslims to procure, by whatever means, commonly-used nuclear material from Indian sources, and explode it, with full confidence that the nuclear forensics capability of the type the National Technical Research Organization has developed will only be able to identify it as Indian-origin nuclear material. If it is contrived so that the Pakistani hand remains invisible, Pakistan Army and ISI may be tempted to back this nuclear terror by RDD, and put India in a spot by hugely complicating its retaliatory response.
:
The trouble is, the Indian government is neither preparing for such contingencies, nor taking measures — such as instituting a secure NUMAC system — on a war-footing, to prevent pilferage of industrial-use nuclear material. Indeed, Delhi has got so used to free-riding on security, courtesy the US’s engagement policy, the Manmohan Singh regime actually hopes Washington will ride to its rescue should India find itself in a nuclear predicament.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby ramana » 29 May 2011 20:15

BTW, Air Chief Marshal S.K. Mehra, was first IAF chief to control the deterrent.

Mehra saab as he was affectionately to BRF members was very approachable and encouraged members to think about strategic affairs.

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Altair » 29 May 2011 20:39

If Pakistan goes for a JDAM, they would not attack a city like Mumbai or Delhi. They know that barrier would mean retaliation from India. They would target Hindu religious places like Ayodhya or Tirupathi. Do we have a plan for that? Our own WKK media would self-destruct India in that case! We dont even need Pakistan!
Islamic militants attacks Hindu temple city with a Nuclear device. Should Hindu India retaliate against secular Pakistan?
How does that sound huh?
We need every possible scenario and every possible way to handle it.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RamaY » 29 May 2011 21:03

moi bad... Self deleted
Last edited by RamaY on 30 May 2011 01:52, edited 1 time in total.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1282
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Nihat » 30 May 2011 01:25

Why does this thread keep getting derailed, even by the senior members ?

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Shrinivasan » 30 May 2011 06:03

IMHO, they very premise of TSP using 50-100 nuclear bombs is far fetched. at best, they can muster a handful (say Ten 50KT devices). Even among these, a couple (missile delivered or Plane delivered) WOULD get get shot down (probably within Indian territory unless that are targeted in boost phase). After the first nuclear impact I don't think even MMS would be restrained in his reaction. At this point uncle will also be busy with his defanging operation...

Even in the event of a dirty bomb, India will react and hit TSP with N Bums.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby shiv » 30 May 2011 06:41

cheenum wrote:IMHO, they very premise of TSP using 50-100 nuclear bombs is far fetched. at best, they can muster a handful (say Ten 50KT devices).


I think your estimate is correct although I started the thread with the premise of 50-100 nukes. There is a very definite problem in discussing anything that does not match majority opinion. If most people think Pakistan is going to launch 100 nukes (because they are making the most fissile material in the world and China is giving them everything) then talking about 5-10 nukes would immediately get the response 'How stupid. Pakistan will launch 100-150 nukes". So better to start with that figure I thought. Anything less is a bonus.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Shrinivasan » 30 May 2011 11:37

shiv wrote:
cheenum wrote:IMHO, they very premise of TSP using 50-100 nuclear bombs is far fetched. at best, they can muster a handful (say Ten 50KT devices).


I think your estimate is correct although I started the thread with the premise of 50-100 nukes. ...then talking about 5-10 nukes would immediately get the response 'How stupid. Pakistan will launch 100-150 nukes". So better to start with that figure I thought. Anything less is a bonus.


I am not even sure if they have the necessary U/Pu for 50-100 Nukes, let alone weaponizing, mating them in warhead and launching 100, let alone 100 impacting Desh. But it is a good doomsday scenario to consider and plan for.

Actually I would include couple Chini Patakas in this mix (potentially larger yield) along with the Paki Pataka (I can sense the retort from Rakshaks that Paki Pataka is Chini Pataka + Green Paint)... :mrgreen:

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6935
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby shyamd » 30 May 2011 20:02

VinodTK wrote:Interview with Air Marshal T. M. Asthana; He was first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command. Gives some insight to Indian thinking.

Bomb from Pak: We will hit back
Q. Last Sunday, terrorists in Pakistan attacked the Mehran naval base near Karachi and destroyed two sophisticated maritime surveillance and attack aircraft. This has led to fears that Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile and fissile material are no longer safe from theft by militants. Is India at particular risk of a possible terror strike using nuclear materials? What is our response mechanism like in such a scenario?
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.

Q. Have scenarios of this nature been discussed in government in your experience?
A. Of course.

He shouldn't even be talking about what we are thinking. If anything he should have said "we will be forced to respond in kind against a state(s) even if we have a suspicion that they were involved". this would have put TSP under a lot of pressure

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Altair » 30 May 2011 20:22

shyamd wrote:
Interview with Air Marshal T. M. Asthana; He was first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command. Gives some insight to Indian thinking.
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group. We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength. But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.



He shouldn't even be talking about what we are thinking. If anything he should have said "we will be forced to respond in kind against a state(s) even if we have a suspicion that they were involved". this would have put TSP under a lot of pressure

On the contrary, he made it clear that response to nuclear attack by terrorist or otherwise will be nuclear.A response to JDAM WILL be nuclear.Hence removing any doubts in minds of retards-ul-paki that bhindians might sulk and run. Although I prefer a disproportionate response to any nuke attack. All logic and humanity will be out of the window.However,This calls another bluff of Pakistan. They are taking considerable damage.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby harbans » 30 May 2011 20:27

On the contrary, he made it clear that response to nuclear attack by terrorist or otherwise will be nuclear.A response to JDAM WILL be nuclear.


No he has not said it will be nuclear. Read it again. As Shyamd ji has said, best he should'nt be clarifying except to put pressure in a tangential way. If i was thinking like a cunning and evil Paki and looking to 93 blasts, Kandahar, 26/11 as precedents..i might plan one and think get away too.

Karna_A
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 03:35

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Karna_A » 31 May 2011 06:30

RajeshA wrote:So either Chinese cities in the East Coast would burn one way or the other - either through attacks by Indian forces, or through Indian "non-state" actors. Or China would have to consider giving Tibet, Qinghai and Yunnan to India. That India is serious about the compensation, would have to be impressed upon China by taking one or two cities in China down. If there is going to be war, then there is going to be war. China cannot escape its responsibility for proliferation by trying to play invisible!

The second front India needs to open, it towards the Arabian Peninsula. We will be sending at least a 100 million Indians to the Arabian Peninsula over the next 6-7 years, and they will see to it that there is not a single Arab alive, and the whole landscape is dotted by Hindu temples, all the way to Jerusalem. It is not a question of whether somebody lets us in or not. We will barge in on shoulders of our numbers and military strength. We will turn the land green and the map saffron! The Arabs cannot escape the responsibility of sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Indian Subcontinent and hope to that the storm would pass them by!

Thirdly every Pakjabi man, woman and child regardless of where ever they may be living on the face of the earth or beyond, will be butchered till there is no trace of that qaum any more on this earth. They will be safe neither in Queenstan, nor in Amreeka, nor in Canada, nor in Norway, simply nowhere. India would be putting up killer commandos in all these lands, and their work would be of hunting down the Pakis, and cremating them alive. No Paki caught would ever end up in a grave or have his last rites read. They will simply be fed to the pigs!

And now Pakilurkers, go ahead and enrich more uranium!



RajeshA, well said.

In war game scenarios Paki generals have said that an Indian air attack on Terror camps in POK would bring a conventional missile strike on Bangalore. They pride themselves on irrational responses.
The Indian irrational response to that has to be Agnifying of Riyadh and Dhahran. That would stop any more attacks from the rabid TSP, because their next step can be catastrophic for Arabian peninsula. Till then no harm in trying to make KSA see what TSP is leading the Asia to.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 31 May 2011 06:54

Nihat wrote:Why does this thread keep getting derailed, even by the senior members ?


+1. Agree.

The discussion keeps on moving to "we'll nuke Pakistan / China / take over the world", instead of clearly focusing on dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear attack which has left up to 30 million of our countrymen dead and an equal number dying.

I guess it is much easier to put in 'slogans' such as "nuke XYZ!" rather than give feasible practical ideas on what could be done.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 31 May 2011 07:12

RajeshA wrote:
Vinit wrote:

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.


Does it mean, that a nuclear attack would mean that India would lose all its military and merchant navy?


I would ask you not to put words in my mouth please.

No, India would not lose all its military and merchant navy. So, you are proposing that the 95 crore surviving Indians use those ships to sail to foreign lands? As per the ministry of shipping India has 216 major vessels. Assume all of them are available - in fact, double that number - and tell me how your migration would proceed.

[/quote]
Does it mean it that India would lose all its financial assets in India and invested and saved in banks all over the world, money with which more ships can be bought at a moment's notice? So there will be ships around, and whenever the situation arises, more ships would have entered service!
[/quote]

Again, no, we would have financial assets. So, do go ahead and optimistically assume that world shipping is freely available (!?) and ready to sail to/from a country that is in the middle of a nuclear war (!? again). So, assume another 1000 ships are made available, and please let us know how your migration of even a tenth of surviving Indians would progress.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 31 May 2011 07:19

RajeshA wrote:The second front India needs to open, it towards the Arabian Peninsula. We will be sending at least a 100 million Indians to the Arabian Peninsula over the next 6-7 years, and they will see to it that there is not a single Arab alive, and the whole landscape is dotted by Hindu temples, all the way to Jerusalem. It is not a question of whether somebody lets us in or not. We will barge in on shoulders of our numbers and military strength. We will turn the land green and the map saffron! The Arabs cannot escape the responsibility of sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Indian Subcontinent and hope to that the storm would pass them by!



Where have I read that before? Ah, yes, substitute "east" for 'west' and "mosque" for 'temple' and you get similar views on the Paki forums.

You are entitled to your views, of course. However, I don't see what this has to do with "surviving a nuclear attack"; it would probably be better suited to a "let's take over Asia" thread.

So, the scenario is this: 25 million of our countrymen are dead; twice that number are dying and in urgent need of assistance. Our major cities are in ruins. The military has been hit, infrastructure is in a mess. At that time, our political and military leaders will meet and say, "Forget all that! Let us now get 100 million Indians to march to Jerusalem!!"

Apologies for the sarcasm but this thread is horribly off the rails.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Bade » 31 May 2011 08:02

Vinit,

No one including you have so far put forth any ideas. Let us also learn what you have thought about surviving a nuclear war so far. That would be more helpful. Is just surviving the end goal if one is engaged in a nuclear war. Here the country under strike also is a NWS with options. So surviving takes a different dimension, not just trying to live off what one has left within the current boundaries.

I can imagine extended families of NRIs from all over the world being plucked out of India by self financed escape routes with very little government involvement. People have done that in the past from Burma, Singapore and Malaysia. There are precedents like that. The expat population in North America alone is a few millions. I am sure they can sponsor such cross border refugees when things turn bad and living conditions unbearable for many.

There can be a formal government response too and some here are trying to see what it can be beyond the usual "Search and Rescue" followed by "Internal rehabilitation" like for natural catastrophes. No harm in exploring that as it can perhaps even help in avoiding requiring this in the first place. Prevention is a natural part of any plan for cure to a problem.

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Altair » 31 May 2011 08:58

The first impact of a large scale nuclear attack is the death of self-confidence and total chaos. It is like losing one's mother in a planned murder and armed dacoity of house.
This is the reason, we are talking about marching to mecca and such stuff.
Let us assume, India's political leadership has been wiped out. Just like the US and Russia has a fall back plan for continuation of a government in case of a nuclear attack, We need a fall back plan to take control of the government and get country back in order.That is our number one priority.

We need a functioning transient government within the first 48 hours.
1. Who will lead the nation? and How is he appointed? What is his legal status as the guardian of the nation?
2. Who will be the local administrators at the disaster zones?(Civilian or Military?) and
What are their duties and responsibilities?
What are their powers and what do they need to perform their duties?
What is our communication protocol between Local and center?
3. Who has the authority of the nuclear command?
What is our strategic and tactical response to the perpetrators?
4. What would be the status of our Armed forces and will they be ready to defend any further attacks by Pakistan and China to take advantage of the situation?
5. Is it necessary to take the entire country into a military rule? Would we be having the numbers to even think of a military rule?
6. How will the survivors be taken care of? How would the essential supplies and medical help reach them?

These are some of the questions that come to my mind. I will add more when i find more time.


Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Airavat » 31 May 2011 09:10

Planning for CBRN attack fallout:

Fears have often been expressed in security and strategic circles of an unexpected “dirty bomb” explosion — either accidentally or by terror outfits — with worrisome chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) implications. A top government official stated the threat bluntly in the aftermath of last week’s assault on the Mehran naval base near Karachi. “We have genuine concerns about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, who is guarding the guardians, do we trust them, are we in a position to?”

A fast-track project to install dosi-meters to monitor radiation levels in 35 cities which hold more than a million people and upscaling quick-reaction teams are among a slew of nuclear safety measures to be discussed at a special meeting of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) called by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on June 1.

Apart from the dosi-meters, the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) is also being upgraded to face CBRN emergencies. NDRF battalions are currently stationed in Calcutta, Pune, Arrakonam and Noida. There is a proposal to raise six more NDRF units and achieve a “greater lateral spread” of the safety net. The NDRF is currently equipped with four hazard-protected vans and one CBRN surveillance vehicle.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1879
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby VikramS » 31 May 2011 09:20

Vinit:

You are missing the essence of Rajesh' posts.

The Pakis want to start a nuclear war and then conquer India. Rajesh wants India to retaliate in a manner which will end the existence of whoever starts a nuclear war with India.

The difference is significant and not subtle:
One does not want to coexist, and wants to destroy.
The other wants to coexist, but wants the ability and the WILL to destroy if their is an existentialist threat.

And it is very important for India to be have the ability and the will to destroy those who challenge her existence. As you pointed out, an India, would be deeply wounded after a 50-100 bomb strike. The deep wounds however do not have to turn fatal, if India can retaliate in a manner which puts an existentialist threat at the necks of those who want to destroy India.

It is not fancy wishfull thinking; it is a necessity if the Indic way of life has to survive. What you need to game, is the alternative, when India does not lash out the murderers. What do you think will happen? Would India be left to cook in the nuclear oven, or will it be taken apart piece by piece? What do you think will prevent a repeat of the 1000 years of invasions of India from the West? Rajesh' view wants that scenario off the table.

The only way to do that is to take the battle into the enemy's heartland. There is no point driving the invaders away from the gates of our city, when they can be battled inside the gates of their cities. A 1000 years of history should have driven that point home by now.

And if our politicians and military are NOT thinking in those directions, they should. No point repeating history; might as well give up our way of life.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Bade » 31 May 2011 09:24

http://ndmindia.nic.in/IIndIDM-Congress.pdf

Has some info which can be of use for any disaster situation. Salient ones are
- 400,000 reserve force to help in setting up camps.
- Mobile hospitals for mass casualty.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 31 May 2011 11:42

VikramS wrote:Vinit:

You are missing the essence of Rajesh' posts.

The Pakis want to start a nuclear war and then conquer India. Rajesh wants India to retaliate in a manner which will end the existence of whoever starts a nuclear war with India.



VikramS, okay, let us assume for a moment that "retaliation" is somehow part of "surviving" - the topic of this thread, although IMHO it should be talked about separately.

Even so, it can be discussed rationally. Given India's superiority in force and delivery methods, the only aspect of retaliation that could be questioned is political will - and I for one believe that such will to respond to nuclear attack exists. It would be wrong to assume that having suffered a nuclear attack on this scale, our leadership would simply stand aside and fail to respond, thus allowing Pakistani forces to march in and take over the country.

So, retaliation. Again, I'm derailing the thread, but: it would depend upon the type of attack and its objectives, and I'm sure our forces have planned such graduated responses.

For example, there might be different nuclear responses to the following types of Pakistani nuclear attack:
(a) sneaky, single, nuclear attack on one city
(b) attack on Indian armed forces that have crossed into Paki territory following a conventional war
(c) attack on significant military bases, e.g. Pakistan attacks 30 of our top airbases/army centres/naval bases
(d) all out nuclear attack on all cities, military facilities, etc aimed at the destruction of India

It is naive and simplistic to say that our retaliatory response in all cases is to nuke everything around us and start population relocation. Perhaps the topic of retaliation and preparedness for it deserves its own thread, rather than getting mixed up with "surviving a nuclear attack".


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop.G, rajkumar, Thakur_B and 56 guests