Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 May 2011 13:14

Vinit wrote: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

Only (a), (b) and (d) are possible! (c) == (d)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 May 2011 14:24

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.

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.

VikramS ji,
thanks for your supportive comments.

Sometimes the lines between Deterrence and Retaliation blur!

Survival has to be seen as of course the emergency response of state and society to mitigate the effects on the population, and it has to be seen as setting up a viable all-India leadership and organization to oversee the rehabilitation and cleanup.

But survival is more than that! Survival is about channelizing all our energies into consolidation of whatever we've left, and then using that as a springboard to neutralize all those who attacked and who contributed to the attack, by destroying their ideologies, their networks and their fortresses. The destruction of such would become the mission.

Survival will be about shedding our tolerance, pacifism and restraint. Survival will be about burying the argumentative Indian for a while. Survival will be about re-energizing the networks of the Dharmic Continuum, and its leadership. Survival will be about all Indians returning to Dharmic Core. Survival will be about Militarization of Indian society under Dharmic leadership. Survival will be about a billion Indians taking the sanction and blessing of Dharma and going out and doing the Parshurama.

Survival requires a total change of mentality, as the previous had proved to be a failure.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 31 May 2011 22:22

VikramS wrote: 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.

Rightly said VikramS. TSP is just the advanced guard of a civilization that has been in conflict with Indics since 1000 years.

Vinit:
The best way to survive a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India is not to have it happen ever. And the best way to avoid it to not happen is when the threat of retaliation is againist the whole of West Asia, not just pidlu advanced guards.
As for the preparation, underground metros in top 50 cities in India with emergency disaster management drills are the best way to survive. But its best to avoid it and the only thing that works is to act like a mad dog againist rabid dogs.

This is the precise reason you will never see even a dirty bomb against Israel because the retaliation would be disastorous for few countries around it.
Israel needs it since if you can see most of the country from some vantage mountains and even a small nook can destroy the whole country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 May 2011 22:41

In case of India, becuase of the nature of adversary/ies Nuclear war is a war with Civilizational dimension and demand response on civilizational scale and prepartion must match to give such response promptly without second thought. Since we are not the one going to initialize the hostility as this scale, the Gaind is in enemy's court. And lets thank PVNR and ABV for their vision an decision otherwise we wont be having this discussion at all.The current crop of Shri Dhoti Shiver Mantries exhibit no such class or confidence.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 01 Jun 2011 06:33

"If there is a nuclear war, India will be badly damaged but Pakistan will be anhillated. It will be the end of Pakistan."

This refrain is so oft-repeated that everyone accepts it as fact.

Except for one problem - it's total bullsh*t. In fact, everything we know about nuclear delivery systems and probable yields of the Indian and Paki arsenals tells us that neither side can come anywhere close to wiping out the other, even if we used every single nuke and they all worked properly. We'd be hard-pressed to even kill off 5% of our respective populations. As for conventional forces, after a devastating nuclear exchange there is no way India could pull off the massive war effort neccesary to overwhelm and invade Pakistan.

So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us. An all-out nuclear war would devastate both countries, kill many millions of people, but leave both nations intact and unable to invade the other. After the nuclear holocaust, we'd be right back to where we started, only a lot poorer and (slightly) less populated. The overall balance of power between India and Pak would not be changed.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 01 Jun 2011 08:46

Karna_A wrote:Vinit:
The best way to survive a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India is not to have it happen ever. And the best way to avoid it to not happen is when the threat of retaliation is againist the whole of West Asia, not just pidlu advanced guards.

Agree 100%. But, we are mixing up three separate topics in the same thread and getting nowhere as a result.

1. Prevention: don't let it happen. Includes diplomacy, threats, Chankian strategies, etc
2. Retaliation: it has happened - how do we hit back? Includes preparedness, weapons, political will.
3. Survival: it has happened - how do we continue as a nation? Includes communication, succession, diplomacy, etc

This thread is about 3, IMHO, and as outlined by the thread author. The whole scenario is that despite prevention etc, the attack has happened, now what? And there is a definite probability that prevention might not work, say if a fanatical Paki regime intent on achieving martyrdom decides to go ahead despite all threats and a certainity of response.

Yes, the boundaries between these three areas are grey. But, if a thread cannot decide what its talking about, then sure, we can talk about anything and never get anywhere.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 01 Jun 2011 08:59

Y. Kanan wrote:"
... everything we know about nuclear delivery systems and probable yields of the Indian and Paki arsenals tells us that neither side can come anywhere close to wiping out the other, even if we used every single nuke and they all worked properly. We'd be hard-pressed to even kill off 5% of our respective populations. As for conventional forces, after a devastating nuclear exchange there is no way India could pull off the massive war effort neccesary to overwhelm and invade Pakistan.

So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us. An all-out nuclear war would devastate both countries, kill many millions of people, but leave both nations intact and unable to invade the other. After the nuclear holocaust, we'd be right back to where we started, only a lot poorer and (slightly) less populated. The overall balance of power between India and Pak would not be changed.

Kanan, agree with you 100%. This is why I've been (rather violently) disagreeing with the strategies being outlined to "capture Tibet" or "march to Jerusalem".

Given that 95% of our population will survive in their existing locations, and also that the majority of our villages, towns, lands, and even cities will survive (yes, most cities will survive - see the current estimates of deliverable Paki nukes in the appropriate thread), we need to be working on practical ideas to manage the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Altair has given a good list of questions on this topic in his post.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jun 2011 10:19

Y. Kanan wrote:So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us. An all-out nuclear war would devastate both countries, kill many millions of people, but leave both nations intact and unable to invade the other. After the nuclear holocaust, we'd be right back to where we started, only a lot poorer and (slightly) less populated. The overall balance of power between India and Pak would not be changed.

The balance of power between India and Pak also depends on how many Indians are raging mad at Pakistan compared to how many Pakistanis hate the guts of Indians.

Pakistan can be sure that there would a billion Indians willing to take out the guts of Pakistanis and eat them for lunch. We will just be creating a 400 million man army and going over to Pakistan and butchering away those Packees who escaped India's nuclear retaliation, unless they change to an ideology concomitant with the desires of the Indian people at that time. Balance of power would become a joke!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Jun 2011 19:18

Y. Kanan wrote:"If there is a nuclear war, India will be badly damaged but Pakistan will be anhillated. It will be the end of Pakistan."

This refrain is so oft-repeated that everyone accepts it as fact.

Except for one problem - it's total bullsh*t. In fact, everything we know about nuclear delivery systems and probable yields of the Indian and Paki arsenals tells us that neither side can come anywhere close to wiping out the other, even if we used every single nuke and they all worked properly. We'd be hard-pressed to even kill off 5% of our respective populations. As for conventional forces, after a devastating nuclear exchange there is no way India could pull off the massive war effort neccesary to overwhelm and invade Pakistan.

Is this a joke or what?
You are claiming that both sides have nuclear weapons that are unreliable. And then use that false premise to make a conclusion ( despite India's overwhelming conventional superiority) that the aftermath will leave both countries too crippled to continue.
Please explain. This is new.

Y. Kanan wrote: So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us. An all-out nuclear war would devastate both countries, kill many millions of people, but leave both nations intact and unable to invade the other. After the nuclear holocaust, we'd be right back to where we started, only a lot poorer and (slightly) less populated. The overall balance of power between India and Pak would not be changed.

Are you in some way implying that a few nuclear weapons detonated over Indian/Pakistani terriroty will grind the war to a halt? I say few because you have doubts about the reliability.

So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us.

So the conventional superiority that India has means nothing you say? Damn those babus and armed forces. They spent so much of tax payers money without realising this!

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 02 Jun 2011 08:22

Neela,

While acknowledging India's definite conventional superiority over Pakistan, the argument is that it is not enough to "wipe out" Pakistan.

Enough to defeat and badly maul any invading Paki forces, yes. Enough to push into Pakistan and take over large-ish tracts of land, yes. But not "wipe out" or "put an end to" Pakistan, particularly after a nuke exchange.

Let me elaborate. Assume that if there were to be a nuke attack on India, at least half would be on military targets (rather than 100% on civilian targets). Also assume, worst case, that they have 100 usable nukes. So, we can expect:

(1) 25-30 nukes used for: massive damage to, or destruction of, key airfields: Ambala, Amritsar, Awantipur, Chandigarh, Halwara, Hindon, Pathankot, Sirsa, Baghdogra, Kalaikunda, Agra, Gorakhpur, Gwalior, Bhuj, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Jamnagar, Lohegaon, Bikaner, Phalodi, Yelhanka, Nagpur

(2) 8-10 nukes used for: hitting key navy installations and ports: Mumbai, Vishakapatnam (within missile range?), Karwar, Goa.

(3) 20 odd nukes used for: Hitting key army formations/commands: Southern Command Pune, XII Corps Jodhpur, XXI Corps Bhopal, Jhansi, SW Command Jaipur, I Corps Mathura, Ambala, Bhatinda, Sri Ganganagar, Kota, Bikaner, Patiala, Meerut, IX Corps at Yol, XI Corps Jalandhar, Firozpur, Amritsar

(Note I have not included any targets in J&K).

Even after this attack pattern, the Pakis would have another 40-odd nukes to hit political/civilian/infra/economic targets.

Now, the question is: if this were to happen, estimate the damage and destruction to our military infrastructure and assets. For example, what % of air assets would we be left with? And then see if our armed forces would be in a position to "wipe out" Pakistan.

We would of course hit them very hard, wipe out almost all their military assets, but not completely destroy Pakistan if by such destruction you mean occupy every inch of land or as some posters seem to suggest, kill every Pakistani. Perhaps India could still muster enough conventional forces to occupy Pakistani Punjab and Sindh - but to what end? Holding on to that territory as an occupier is not as easy as it sounds; look at the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe that is what Kannan was referring to - please note that in any case India would still retain conventional superiority over Pakistan and that is not being debated.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 02 Jun 2011 08:30

"So we can't wipe out Pakistan any more than they can wipe out us. An all-out nuclear war would devastate both countries, kill many millions of people, but leave both nations intact and unable to invade the other."

But India should make it clear that any attack by Pakistan is also an attack by the countries that have provided Pakistan with the means. They are criminally culpable. India should let those few countries stand by and escape unscathed.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 02 Jun 2011 14:09

Vinit:

Surviving a nuclear war does not just mean surviving the bombs. It also means having the means to defend itself from whatever that follows. The ability to take the battle into the heart of the aggressor is almost a given if a wounded India has to survive. A wounded India will be a very attractive target to those who want to wipe her civilization out. If history is a guide, Indics have not displayed the same zeal to wipe a weakened aggressor out. Those aspects of Indic culture have to be reversed and the Indics have to be prepared to take the battle to the aggressor instead of waiting for the aggressor to come into her wounded heartland.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Jun 2011 14:49

Often we fail to appreciate that Indian mentality before and after the nuclear attack will totaally different!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Jun 2011 16:01

Vinit wrote:Neela,

While acknowledging India's definite conventional superiority over Pakistan, the argument is that it is not enough to "wipe out" Pakistan.

Enough to defeat and badly maul any invading Paki forces, yes. Enough to push into Pakistan and take over large-ish tracts of land, yes. But not "wipe out" or "put an end to" Pakistan, particularly after a nuke exchange.

Let me elaborate. Assume that if there were to be a nuke attack on India, at least half would be on military targets (rather than 100% on civilian targets). Also assume, worst case, that they have 100 usable nukes. So, we can expect:

(1) 25-30 nukes used for: massive damage to, or destruction of, key airfields: Ambala, Amritsar, Awantipur, Chandigarh, Halwara, Hindon, Pathankot, Sirsa, Baghdogra, Kalaikunda, Agra, Gorakhpur, Gwalior, Bhuj, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Jamnagar, Lohegaon, Bikaner, Phalodi, Yelhanka, Nagpur

(2) 8-10 nukes used for: hitting key navy installations and ports: Mumbai, Vishakapatnam (within missile range?), Karwar, Goa.

(3) 20 odd nukes used for: Hitting key army formations/commands: Southern Command Pune, XII Corps Jodhpur, XXI Corps Bhopal, Jhansi, SW Command Jaipur, I Corps Mathura, Ambala, Bhatinda, Sri Ganganagar, Kota, Bikaner, Patiala, Meerut, IX Corps at Yol, XI Corps Jalandhar, Firozpur, Amritsar

(Note I have not included any targets in J&K).

Even after this attack pattern, the Pakis would have another 40-odd nukes to hit political/civilian/infra/economic targets.

Now, the question is: if this were to happen, estimate the damage and destruction to our military infrastructure and assets. For example, what % of air assets would we be left with? And then see if our armed forces would be in a position to "wipe out" Pakistan.

We would of course hit them very hard, wipe out almost all their military assets, but not completely destroy Pakistan if by such destruction you mean occupy every inch of land or as some posters seem to suggest, kill every Pakistani. Perhaps India could still muster enough conventional forces to occupy Pakistani Punjab and Sindh - but to what end? Holding on to that territory as an occupier is not as easy as it sounds; look at the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe that to is what Kannan was referring to - please note that in any case India would still retain conventional superiority over Pakistan and that is not being debated.

COuld you please explain "wipe out" ? On the one hand you mention that we have enough to take over vast tracts of land but beyond that you say "wipe out". YOu need to quantify what wipe out is.

I again want to stress on conventional superiority. You are seeing a nuclear exchange and conventional war in different domains. The fact is they go together. Pakistan does not have the reach to take out several bases let alone what you have mentioned.It does not have reliable weapons, and does not have enough time to take out all the targets you have mentioned. The conventional superiorty we have will ensure that Pakistan is reliant largely on its missiles. All these missiles will have to be deep inside its territory for them to survive. And they will be susceptible to our missiles. I am not saying that Pakistan cannot detonate a weapon inside INdian territory. It can but definately not the numbers you say. When one is detonated inside Indian territory, Pakistan itself is in race against time to launch as many as it can. If you have read the thread, you will understand the logistics behind doing this stuff.

With every inch of Pakistani territory possibly mapped, it will be very quite hard for them sustain their launches. Their option is to keep all their nuclear weapons ready and prepare to launch them all within days for them to pull off something like you mentioned. EVen this will not be unnoticed. For Pakistan to prepare for that, some threshold has to be crossed. What is that threshold? I don#t know. But Pakistan will realize that by doing that they are going for broke.

With our BMD system,we are also addressing the Pakistani missile situation. Why do you think Pakistanis say that there is a arms race in South Asia. The conventional superiority is making it very hard for them to reliably strike - and they start whining.

Do keep in mind that the numbers of every equipment we buy are not something random. They are based on what the military planners envision when it comes to a war. They base this on the various scenarios and arrive at a number which ensures maximum protection and damage they can inflict.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 03 Jun 2011 07:52

Neela wrote: COuld you please explain "wipe out" ? On the one hand you mention that we have enough to take over vast tracts of land but beyond that you say "wipe out". YOu need to quantify what wipe out is.

Wipe out = annhilate. See first line of Kannan's post which started the discussion, and which you have quoted.

Neela wrote:
Pakistan does not have the reach to take out several bases let alone what you have mentioned.It does not have reliable weapons, and does not have enough time to take out all the targets you have mentioned. I am not saying that Pakistan cannot detonate a weapon inside INdian territory. It can but definately not the numbers you say.

Please see topic of this thread. All discussions are within that context and with that assumption, viz. a nuclear strike of that magnitude has occurred.

You can go with the "all iz well" argument, which says that Pakistan does not have, and will not have in the next 5-10 years (really!!) the capability to do this. I've heard arguments on the lines that their weapons are unreliable, missiles are duds, tests are fake, reactors are empty, plutonium processing is for China, and world-wide concerns about their ramping up production are paranoia.

Fine; do so. However, this thread is about the worst-case scenario. Topic: What if they actually do have 50 nukes and the means to deliver them, and one sad day actually do that? How does our nation deal with the aftermath?

Or, are we generally happy to say "they can't do it / our conventional forces are better"? In which case this thread can be closed down with that one-liner.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 03 Jun 2011 07:59

The first stage of surviving or preparing is acknowledging the risk of an incident happening. We keep hearing arguments about the inability of Pakistan to deliver such an attack.

That might be correct; I don't know, and I don't think the posters know for sure either. What I do know is that just as we should not be paranoid ("Pakistani attack will destroy India - take over Tibet / Middle East!") we shouldn't be complacent either ("They can't do it")

This is like a doctor trying to tell a patient that there is a slight chance of his suffering a heart attack in the next 3 years, so let's discuss what you would do in case that happens (emergency number, deep breathing, nitro tablet..) Instead, the patient says either "No doc, it won't happen, forget it" or "hey, if it happens, I'm dead, so forget it".

Shouldn't some thought be given to what would happen if a fanatic Pakistani leadership actually can do this sometime in the next 1-5 years, and then does it? I think this thread should be about that.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 04 Jun 2011 23:07

There are 2 types of generals in TSP: Pakistani and Islamists

A nationalistic Pakistani general would never attempt a nook war with India since in return TSP gets destroyed. That's why terror is a low cost alternative. It's not going anywhere but it is so far sufficeint to keep Generals H&D.
However, for growing Islamist Generals, TSP destruction is a small price to pay for India's severe wounding. So Islamist General can surely be part of a nook attack on India.
Slowly TSPA is becoming Islamist from being Pakistani.
To avoid the 2nd types from being adventurous, it's best to take down whole of West Asia as a retaliation. That would stop the Islamists, as that would mean Middle East is back to 6th century instead of 7th Century.

And it's 100% guarenteed that if TSP does attack India with nooks, Agni V will be flying over Riyadh to deliver flowers and more.
If burning of just 50+ people in Godhra can burn the whole of Gujarat state, or 1992/93 can bring the whole of Maharastra into fire, then 5 Million casualties would bring a global slaughter by surviving Indians never seen before.

This whole concept of Indic being timid is a fallacy perpetuated by British and communist education which has been repeatedly proved otherwise. An Indic under pressure is basically a mad man, strongly believing in reincarnation who is capable of destroying anything and everything is his path.

As for India, it's simply indestructible. Even the Andaman Islands are six times the size of Singapore.

Of course as Vinit mentioned, there have to be practical ways defined how to survive, and best way is to have Metros in top 50-100 cities with some Metro stations designed to withstand NBC fallouts.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Jun 2011 20:39

Trivia/For entertainment value onlee.
A simplistic nuclear explosion effects/fallout application.
Ground Zero II
sorry if this was posted earlier or is irrelevant.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jun 2011 01:34

Karna_A wrote:
This whole concept of Indic being timid is a fallacy perpetuated by British and communist education which has been repeatedly proved otherwise. An Indic under pressure is basically a mad man, strongly believing in reincarnation who is capable of destroying anything and everything is his path.

The past 40 years of image creation of Indians is done to pressure Indians to remain constrained by their image
They will now moving forward "expose" Indians as hardcore militant and war fighting barbarians who need to be contained in the world.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 06 Jun 2011 07:53

Why a nuclear attack is possible

Following up on Karna's post above, Pakistani mentality seems to revolve around the two Fs: Fear, and Fanaticism.

Fear: Their leaders have been, for generations, drumming into their heads the refrain that the big bad country to the East is simply waiting to destroy them and will do so at the first opportunity. They sincerely believe that India is hell-bent on ending Pakistan.
Now, they look East and see a country with 4 times the population, 8 times the economy, and growing fast, with an increasing military capability that they cannot match. Hence, Fear++. India is enemy number one.

As the wise master Yoda once said, "Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate."

Fanaticism: Increasingly, Pakistan is a fanatic islamist state. A Saudi prince once remarked "these guys think Islam was invented in Islamabad in 1947". Not only do they believe in the absolute supremacy of Islam, they look upon themselves as the primary custodians and guardians of the faith, with their "biggest Islamic Army" and the "Only Islamic Nuclear Country".
Along with this comes a feeling of superiority and a tendency to underestimate the enemy. We've seen this many times, with one Paki being equal to 10 Indians, or the expectation that India would be weak in 1965, or that India would not retaliate in Kargil.

Combine these two factors: Fear and Fanaticism - and there exists a definite possibility, hopefully low, that some irrational Pakistani leader would launch a nuclear attack on India. Yes, his country would come off much worse, but that wouldn't stop him. The probability of attack definitely exists, and must be prepared for.

Which is why I've been asking that this thread discuss the aftermath of such an attack and how we would cope with it, while treating retaliation and deterrence as other topics.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 06 Jun 2011 08:10

Why a Suprise Nuclear Attack is possible

Some posters have stated that Pakistan cannot launch a surprise nuclear attack on India or that they do not have the capacity to do so.

The second point is being discussed in the appropriate thread. I will only say here that they are acknowledged to have a number of tested Shaheen (750km) and Ghauri (1500 km) missiles plus air delivery capability, plus almost everyone worldwide is confident that they have a growing stockpile of nukes. These factors cannot be brushed under the carpet by saying "hoax".

As to the surprise factor, that Pakistan cannot engage in a surprise nuclear attack - it is certainly possible. Even if we did detect preparations, given our "no first use" doctrine, India's options are very limited.

For example, take the scenario below, given as news reports. What can India do, except prepare?

June 2012: Pakistan admits some nuke weapons are ready for use: Following persistent rumours and accusations from India, Pakistan today acknowledged that "a certain number" of nuclear weapons were in a ready to use state. Previously, the Pakistani position was that the cores were kept separate from the weapon. A Pakistani spokesman said that this was done for security reasons, because it was possible to keep the assembled weapons in an extremely high security situation as compared to having cores and weapons at different locations. He said that Pakistan was a responsible state and this should not worry anyone.

September 2012: Pakistan today acknowledged that "a very small number" of missiles were loaded with nuclear warheads and kept at a 30-minute readiness level. Gen XYZ said that this was done in order to provide Pakistan with a second strike capability against growing Indian aggressiveness. "The Indians have a triad of delivery weapons and we must have a second strike capacity if they nuke Pakistan" he said. He also said that this should not worry anyone since Pakistan was a responsible state. "After all, the Americans and the Russians have thousands of ready to use missiles with nuclear warheads" he said.

In short - I'm saying that Pakistan can increase its nuclear readiness gradually and then hit India with a nuclear attack. Even if we detect those preparations, we can't do much except make a lot of noise, give warnings, and submit dossiers. Fat lot of good all that is going to do to a fanatic Paki leader who has decided to take out India.

Hence, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 06 Jun 2011 09:28

Pakistani Nuclear Attack - Impact on the IAF

Here I'm giving just one scenario of a nuclear attack by Pakistan on 15 IAF bases. All these bases are within the range of Pakistan's Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, and the assumption is each base is targetted by a 25kt warhead mounted on one of these missiles.

As you can see, this scenario would potentially cause the loss of up to 400 frontline IAF aircraft. In each case, the airbase is targetted (which is not the same as targetting the city to which the airbase is attacked).

I'm doing this only to show the possible effects of a nuclear attack (in this case 15 warheads, with the rest of the Paki inventory being used for other targets). This can lead to a discussion on preparing to deal with the aftermath.

Apologies for the messy formatting. I have a neat table but don't know how to insert it here.

Base Distance from Pak Border (Sqdrn)Type of Aircraft No. of Aircraft
1 Pathankot 50 (108) Mig 21 18
2 Adampur 90 (47) Mig 29 (223) Mig 29 36
3 Bhuj 120 (15) Mig 21 16
4 Halwara 140 (22) Mig 27, (31) SU-30 32
5 Sirsa 190 (21) Mig 21 18
6 Jamnagar 200 (224) Jag (6) Jag (28) Mig 29 52
7 Ambala 250 (5) Jag, (14) Jag, (3) Mig 21 48
8 Chandigarh 280 (26) Mig-21 18
9 Jodhpur 280 (10) Mig 27 (29) Mig 27 (32) Mig 21 48
10 Hindon 380
11 Agra 550
12 Bareilly 600 (8) Su-30 (24) Su-30 36
13 Gwalior 700 (9) Mirage 22
14 Lohegaon 800 (20) SU-30 (30) SU-30 36
15 Gorakhpur 1100 (16) Jag (27) Jag 36

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 06 Jun 2011 09:43

nukavarapu wrote: So that leaves us with Shaheen and Ghauri. Out of the two Ghauri is liquid fueled and needs atleast 60 mins. for preparation. If not ours, atleast the Israeli/American intelligence should pick that up. So we will get an indication right away and gives us 1 hour of lead time to do something about it. Atleast to get all the jets up in the air, prepare of ABMs and our BMs. The problem will be the Shaheen, as it is solid fueled, some % will be in ready to fire position. And that no. will definitely be less than 10. Modest calculations will put it around 7-8. Don't you all think that our satellites are already tracking the mobile launchers of Shaheen? A really dumb scenario would be to assume that actually we are not or some how they are evading our eyes and ears. So the bottom line is that we can expect 7-8 nuclear strikes, before we can do a full scale retaliation.

I agree that Ghauri and Shaheen would be the primary attack platforms. I'm afraid I don't know the numbers either, but would assume from internet estimates that put together, there would be 24 to 36 of them.

I do disagree with your position on advance warning, though. Firstly, I doubt we can monitor all mobile launchers - too easy to disguise, camouflage, move, use dummies, etc. For example, the US was unable to monitor Iraqi Scud launchers in GW I despite trying very hard and with air supremacy. Also, I don't share your belief in US/Israeli intelligence being so up to the mark that they can detect liquid fuelling and convey that information to us in the 60 min that it takes - that's almost like having an observer on the missile silo with a ready connection to his HQ! So I wouldn't call the idea that some launchers would evade us "dumb".

Getting enough warning of launch preparation was a massive problem for the US till the closing days of the cold war. Despite their spending billions on radar, satellites, worldwide bases, forces on alert, and intelligence, the fear of a USSR "sudden strike" always remained.

It would be good to have advance warning, of course. But we can't plan on the basis that we will have it. Plans should be made on the basis that the first warning we will have is a group of incoming missiles being picked up on radar.

nukavarapu wrote: Moving so many missiles close to the border is gonna ring a lot of bells. The moving itself will take a couple of days if not weeks.

Why would they have to move missiles close to the border? A missile with a range of 1500 km can be fired off from 300 km inside Pakistan and still hit 1,200 km within India. And, you mentioned mobile launchers yourself - those don't take too long to move and get ready to fire - a few hours at most.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2011 09:46

Vinit wrote:Pakistani Nuclear Attack - Impact on the IAF

Here I'm giving just one scenario of a nuclear attack by Pakistan on 15 IAF bases. All these bases are within the range of Pakistan's Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, and the assumption is each base is targetted by a 25kt warhead mounted on one of these missiles.

As you can see, this scenario would potentially cause the loss of up to 400 frontline IAF aircraft. In each case, the airbase is targetted (which is not the same as targetting the city to which the airbase is attacked).

I'm doing this only to show the possible effects of a nuclear attack (in this case 15 warheads, with the rest of the Paki inventory being used for other targets). This can lead to a discussion on preparing to deal with the aftermath.

Apologies for the messy formatting. I have a neat table but don't know how to insert it here.

Base Distance from Pak Border (Sqdrn)Type of Aircraft No. of Aircraft
1 Pathankot 50 (108) Mig 21 18
2 Adampur 90 (47) Mig 29 (223) Mig 29 36
3 Bhuj 120 (15) Mig 21 16
4 Halwara 140 (22) Mig 27, (31) SU-30 32
5 Sirsa 190 (21) Mig 21 18
6 Jamnagar 200 (224) Jag (6) Jag (28) Mig 29 52
7 Ambala 250 (5) Jag, (14) Jag, (3) Mig 21 48
8 Chandigarh 280 (26) Mig-21 18
9 Jodhpur 280 (10) Mig 27 (29) Mig 27 (32) Mig 21 48
10 Hindon 380
11 Agra 550
12 Bareilly 600 (8) Su-30 (24) Su-30 36
13 Gwalior 700 (9) Mirage 22
14 Lohegaon 800 (20) SU-30 (30) SU-30 36
15 Gorakhpur 1100 (16) Jag (27) Jag 36

Good thinking Vinit

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 12:09

A massive nuclear bolt out of the blue is really, really hard to achieve.

Crises always have a build up.

Both India as well as the US have a strong COMINT capability. Placing Pakistani nuclear forces on alert would generate warnings flags all over, even if individuals TELARs couldnt all be kept track of.

As I said earlier in this thread, the real question is how India as an economy and a society, let alone a military force would continue to roll forward if its oil terminals were hit - at best there's enough for a couple of weeks worth of consumption at any given time.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 06 Jun 2011 13:32

Johann wrote:A massive nuclear bolt out of the blue is really, really hard to achieve.

Crises always have a build up.

Both India as well as the US have a strong COMINT capability. Placing Pakistani nuclear forces on alert would generate warnings flags all over, even if individuals TELARs couldnt all be kept track of.
As I said earlier in this thread, the real question is how India as an economy and a society, let alone a military force would continue to roll forward if its oil terminals were hit - at best there's enough for a couple of weeks worth of consumption at any given time.

Have been saying this earlier well .

Neela wrote:. Their option is to keep all their nuclear weapons ready and prepare to launch them all within days for them to pull off something like you mentioned. EVen this will not be unnoticed. For Pakistan to prepare for that, some threshold has to be crossed. What is that threshold? I don#t know. But Pakistan will realize that by doing that they are going for broke.

I still think that crossing a threshold to use nukes is something that does not happen instantly. It is a state where several key players in positions of power feel and concur out of their desperation

Vinit wrote:In short - I'm saying that Pakistan can increase its nuclear readiness gradually and then hit India with a nuclear attack. Even if we detect those preparations, we can't do much except make a lot of noise, give warnings, and submit dossiers. Fat lot of good all that is going to do to a fanatic Paki leader who has decided to take out India.

Vinit I think you are being very unkind to the Indian military and government here. Are you saying that despite knowing a nuclear attack is on the cards, everyone will remain silent on military mobilisation?

Vinit wrote:September 2012: Pakistan today acknowledged that "a very small number" of missiles were loaded with nuclear warheads and kept at a 30-minute readiness level. Gen XYZ said that this was done in order to provide Pakistan with a second strike capability against growing Indian aggressiveness. "The Indians have a triad of delivery weapons and we must have a second strike capacity if they nuke Pakistan" he said. He also said that this should not worry anyone since Pakistan was a responsible state. "After all, the Americans and the Russians have thousands of ready to use missiles with nuclear warheads" he said.

Even this scenario you mentioned will raise the alert levels in India. Why would a country announce a 30 minute readiness level unless it sees that time period as crucial?

I liked your list though.

BTW , it seems that we are veering away again from the title of the thread.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 06 Jun 2011 14:19

Neela, my question is: what exactly will India do to prevent a Paki attack if it detects a higher Paki readiness?
The answer is, not much can be done.

Yes, the examples I have given will ring warning bells. Forces will be moved to a higher state of readiness and the nuclear arsenal preparedness kicked up several notches. We will be ready to retaliate in 30 min instead of 24 hours, maybe.

So, we now have a situation where Pak can launch an attack in 30 min and we can retaliate in the next 30 min. That does not prevent a fanatic Paki leader from pushing the button! We will be at the receiving end of a couple dozen nukes anyway.

Also, conventional readiness can be maintained only for so long. IAF units will have to return to their bases from dispersal locations, the navy to their bases, and so on. Nuclear readiness on the other hand is much easier to maintain.

My whole point is that there is no way to stop a fanatic Paki leadership who accepts the loss of their country from launching a massive nuke attack (subject of this thread). Which is why I regard "inability of Pak to do a surprise attack" as a distraction.

The only way to stop a determined and fanatic Pak from a nuke strike is for us to do a pre-emptive strike, which we will not do.

Given that, what we can do is retaliate, and prepare to deal with the aftermath - which is the subject of this thread. But to discuss that, we need to accept that such a nuke strike is possible (hopefully unlikely, but still possible) and then go from there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jun 2011 21:07

Cant rely on US information on TSP. Most likely they will fudge and obfuscate. During the 90s crisis, US advisers were arguing in WH that instead of Pak focus on Delhi, Bombay and BARC should be the focus.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 07 Jun 2011 00:19

Vinit wrote:Neela, my question is: what exactly will India do to prevent a Paki attack if it detects a higher Paki readiness?
The answer is, not much can be done.

My whole point is that there is no way to stop a fanatic Paki leadership who accepts the loss of their country from launching a massive nuke attack (subject of this thread). Which is why I regard "inability of Pak to do a surprise attack" as a distraction.

The only way to stop a determined and fanatic Pak from a nuke strike is for us to do a pre-emptive strike, which we will not do.

Given that, what we can do is retaliate, and prepare to deal with the aftermath - which is the subject of this thread. But to discuss that, we need to accept that such a nuke strike is possible (hopefully unlikely, but still possible) and then go from there.

A conventional 20 Agni missile strike on Dhahran, KSA to destroy most of the the oil industry there will stop a potential Paki nook attack.
Why would it stop, the reasons are complex and convoluted, but only someone who understands Islamist mentality would understand them:
This is taking TSP philosophy on its head where no matter why TSP nooks India, India Nooks KSA.

Its well known that TSP defence against Israeli attack was that if Israel atatcks TSP, TSP attacks India.

(a) It would prove that Delhi has mad men who will do anything to save India, even nook half of Asia, though TSP is given chance by using Conventional missiles first.
(b) It would become clear to TSP that a nook on India now will mean 2 nooks on TSP and 3 on KSA.
(c) Further escalation from TSP would mean that KSA would go back to 7th century or even 6th century.

There is no need to destroy the two Ms in KSA yet as that would affect the Indians in Gulf and also patriotic IMs. But everything else in KSA is fair game like Riyadh, Dhahran, Jeddah, Dammam.

A 50-100 Nook attack on India has to be avoided at all costs and best way is to make sure TSP generals know that a Mad Tantric believing in crores of reincarnations is way more dangerous than a mad Mullah just believing in 72 houris.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Jun 2011 00:52

Karna_A wrote:
Vinit wrote:Neela, my question is: what exactly will India do to prevent a Paki attack if it detects a higher Paki readiness?
The answer is, not much can be done.

My whole point is that there is no way to stop a fanatic Paki leadership who accepts the loss of their country from launching a massive nuke attack (subject of this thread). Which is why I regard "inability of Pak to do a surprise attack" as a distraction.

The only way to stop a determined and fanatic Pak from a nuke strike is for us to do a pre-emptive strike, which we will not do.

Given that, what we can do is retaliate, and prepare to deal with the aftermath - which is the subject of this thread. But to discuss that, we need to accept that such a nuke strike is possible (hopefully unlikely, but still possible) and then go from there.
A conventional 20 Agni missile strike on Dhahran, KSA to destroy most of the the oil industry there will stop a potential Paki nook attack.
Why would it stop, the reasons are complex and convoluted, but only someone who understands Islamist mentality would understand them:
This is taking TSP philosophy on its head where no matter why TSP nooks India, India Nooks KSA.

Its well known that TSP defence against Israeli attack was that if Israel atatcks TSP, TSP attacks India.

(a) It would prove that Delhi has mad men who will do anything to save India, even nook half of Asia, though TSP is given chance by using Conventional missiles first.
(b) It would become clear to TSP that a nook on India now will mean 2 nooks on TSP and 3 on KSA.
(c) Further escalation from TSP would mean that KSA would go back to 7th century or even 6th century.

There is no need to destroy the two Ms in KSA yet as that would affect the Indians in Gulf and also patriotic IMs. But everything else in KSA is fair game like Riyadh, Dhahran, Jeddah, Dammam.

A 50-100 Nook attack on India has to be avoided at all costs and best way is to make sure TSP generals know that a Mad Tantric believing in crores of reincarnations is way more dangerous than a mad Mullah just believing in 72 houris.

Karna_A ji,

Thanks for spelling it out again. KSA should be game if Pakistan attacks India. More specifically India should be willing to nuke every major oil and gas field in the Gulf. Either that or we should promise them the 6th century, cleansed of everything that came afterwards.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 07 Jun 2011 01:14

A small complication in that all the SA cities mentioned has substantial numbers of Indian citizen workers, so they could become collateral damage. I would rather take the Ms out instead. Less collateral and more h&d issues.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jun 2011 01:38

Do both first and settle the issue of correctness later.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Jun 2011 02:19

Doesn't massa have a substantial military presence in KSA? Ensure that they don;t get hit too?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Jun 2011 02:31

Bade wrote:A small complication in that all the SA cities mentioned has substantial numbers of Indian citizen workers, so they could become collateral damage. I would rather take the Ms out instead. Less collateral and more h&d issues.

No collateral damage to Indian citizens. India needs to have a plan in place, that in case GoI gives the word, each and every Indian should travel to aforementioned sites asap. All these Indians can form the labor and technical arm of the Indian Military in the Arabian Peninsula should the Indian Military prefer to bomb/nuke some places and leave others for a takeover or should the Indian Military be asked to takeover the whole god-damned place. But even then, the Indian workers in the Gulf need to brought to safety.

Should the KSA government put up some barriers for Indians and in any other way hinder the free movement of Indian workers, then that gives the Indian government all the more reason to attack KSA.

Ultimate goal is to cleanse the place of all those who supported, financially and otherwise, the creation of the Pakistani nukes; as well as to cleanse the place of their ideology, which motivated such to support Pakistan, as well as to cleanse all those who supported such an ideology, pretty much every Arab adult male on the Arabian Peninsula. Others may just be collateral.

It is for the Saudis to make sure that such a scenario does not come to pass, and the surest way is to help India denuclearize Pakistan.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jun 2011 03:55

IMs can be the custodian of both Mecca and Medina etc.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 07 Jun 2011 04:55

RajeshA wrote:Ultimate goal is to cleanse the place of all those who supported, financially and otherwise, the creation of the Pakistani nukes; as well as to cleanse the place of their ideology, which motivated such to support Pakistan, as well as to cleanse all those who supported such an ideology, pretty much every Arab adult male on the Arabian Peninsula. Others may just be collateral.

It is for the Saudis to make sure that such a scenario does not come to pass, and the surest way is to help India denuclearize Pakistan.

There are 2 ways to survive a 50 to 100 nook bomb attack on India: One defensive and one offensive

Defensive is to create X no. of Hospitals, get Y no. of NBC bomb shelters and Z tonnes of Iodine so supposedly India is prepared.
The problem with defensive is what is stopping another TSP like country in nooking India after 50-100 years. There is no shortage of such countries.

Offensive is to make sure for next 500/1000 years no one can touch indics again. Common sense says that preparation should be 20% defensive and 80% offensive.
Instead of India getting scared of TSP and Chipanda joining forces to nook India, the whole of anti India Asia should be scared of cunning Jew and Chanakyan Indic joining forces to take them back to 6th century.
Is this just a hot air thought? Well, as I mentioned before the mad tantrics response to 50 burning at Godhra should be extrapolated to 5 million casualties and then it won't look just hot air but by the book Ashwathama solution, with this time Gods supporting the solution.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jun 2011 06:38

Xposting from Mil Thread: Thnks to VinodTK:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... epage=true

^good article that. I've had a sneaking feeling that this is exactly what might happen - JDAMs delivered in India - Pak blames "non state" actors - what does India do? Even worse, they track some of the fissile material to China (saw some movie wherein they were able to do so).

How does India react? What sort of emergency systems do they have in place? Time to start stockpiling on some emergency stuff - meds, basic etc methinks. Probly invest in homesteads away from big cities. Does not look good.

CM

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 07 Jun 2011 06:41

The threat to takeover KSA oil economy into Indian hands by force is just what I was thinking too. Mecca and Medina destruction even using conventional weapons is a good enough deterrence value with intent to Indianize Arabic Islamism. Agree with the idea that majority component of the response to a nuke attack being aggressive intent, even if without using nuclear weapons or a measured use of such weapons against benefactors of the source of nuke attack on us. Control of KSA oil resources is just part of the reparations for supporting the Islamic bomb, it also affects uncle indirectly. All fair and square, nothing cultural or religious in this move. Pure tit for tat with a lot more pain than what gets inflicted on us.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 07 Jun 2011 18:16

If India and Pakistan come to nuclear blows, blame the US

INDIA'S 'ISRAEL ENVY'

Writing as Israel pounded Gaza a few weeks after the Mumbai attacks, the former diplomat Shashi Tharoor spoke of India's "Israel envy". Indians know that war with Pakistan would be catastrophically counterproductive. Yet, as he wrote, "when Indians watch Israel take the fight to the enemy, killing those who launched rockets against it" some of them "cannot resist wishing that they could do something similar in Pakistan".

Faced with a rash Indian strike, it might well behave even more recklessly - an increasingly plausible scenario that America's rigidly compartmentalised policies in South Asia have done little to thwart.

http://www.todayonline.com/Commentary/E ... ame-the-US

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 08 Jun 2011 06:07

Karna_A wrote:A conventional 20 Agni missile strike on Dhahran, KSA to destroy most of the the oil industry there

I don't mean to sound dismissive here, but you do not appear to have a very good understanding of ballistic missiles and their effectiveness when armed with conventional warheads. You seem to have a very cartoonish view of what these weapons can do.

I assure you 20 conventionally armed Agnis would be a collosal waste of money and certainly would not "destroy most of the oil industry" in Saudi Arabia. I mean seriously? You really said that?

Now, 20 Agnis with nuclear warheads could do the job...