Bharat Rakshak

Bheeshma wrote:Exactly, keep hitting pakjab and anything and everything that funds paki army.

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

matrimc wrote:Have people seen this 650 page book?

Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition (Published by USDOD and ERDA)

ramana wrote:If China intervenes there is possibility of Buddha smiling again.

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

India shouldn't fear nuclear reprisal on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism:
Defence expert Christine Fair

Criticising Pakistan-sponsored terror against India, Fair said, "I have never heard any Pakistani say they will not send a terror team because India has nuclear weapons."

IndiaToday.in | Edited by Ashna Kumar
New Delhi, September 21, 2016 | UPDATED 02:02 IST

Highlights

1
Never heard any Pakistani say they will not send terrorists because India has nuclear weapons: Fair
2
India cannot expect support unless it officially declares Pakistan a state sponsor of terror.
3
Waging a diplomatic war is just not enough.

Talking to India Today about India's retaliation against Pakistan after the Uri terror attack, Georgetown University professor and an expert on India-Pakistan relations Christine Fair said that India shouldn't exercise restraint fearing nuclear reprisal from Pakistan.

Criticising Pakistan-sponsored terror against India, Fair said, "I have never heard any Pakistani say they will not send a terror team because India has nuclear weapons."

She says that India's nuclear arsenal should in fact give it immunity and impunity to prosecute sub-state terrorism sponsored by Pakistan.

HOLES IN PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

Fair pointed holes in Pakistan's nuclear doctrine saying that it required Pakistan "to first detonate a nuclear tactical weapon in its air space as a warning to Indian troops and then the second level of escalation over a border transgression would call for the use of nuclear weaponry.

If Pakistan bursts a weapon in its airspace, it will immediately run a risk of knocking out its commanding communication."

"Secondly, If Indian troops transgress into a populated city like Sialkot or Lahore, Pakistan will suffer more fatalities than on Indian troops. Therefore, this battlefield calculation gives India a lot of wriggle room to retaliate than to exercise restraint," she said.

BALOCHISTAN CARD DEMOTES LARGER ISSUE

The professor also warned India against breaching the Indus water treaty with Pakistan, arguing that it will be an unjust answer because India will end up punishing innocent Pakistanis and not those who launched the terror attack.

Fair is strongly averse to India's plan of sending ministers to foreign countries in order to garner support against Pakistan. She says, "It is a little too much to ask others to do it," adding that India cannot expect support unless it officially declares Pakistan a state sponsor of terror.

Asking India to focus on Pakistan seeding unrest in Kashmir and not on Balochistan, she advised - "If India plays the Balochistan card to UN, it would merely look like a 'tit for tat' situation, thereby demoting the larger issue of sub-state terrorism."

WHY IS CHINA DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

Fair wanted India to pull in China into the debate as they have been defending Pakistant blatantly. It will put China in a hot seat, when India raises the terror issue in UN.

"Why is China defending the indefensible?" asked Fair.

Waging a diplomatic war is just not enough, Fair said.

"Don't expect diplomatic isolation is going to stop Pakistan from using terror as tool for foreign policy," she added.

matrimc wrote:Have people seen this 650 page book?

Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition (Published by USDOD and ERDA)

Gagan wrote:Madam-ji has just copy pasted from the internet and jerry rigged a sort of an article, and here we are discussing this piece of crap

A potential low-yield, tactical nuclear weapon strike by Pakistan is perhaps the single most important factor preventing the Narendra Modi government from taking any military action against Pakistan in haste. While the threat from these weapons has been described by some in India as just a Pakistani red herring, the same will play on the minds of Indian policy makers if they indeed decide to go ahead with a cross-border strike.
As the director of Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, Hans Kristensen remains one of world's leading authorities on Pakistan's nuclear weapon programme. He first wrote in 2011 that Pakistan's production of nuclear capable 60-km Nasr missile was not intended to target any Indian city but to check an Indian army advance. TOI caught up with Kristensen to find out how credible was the threat from Pakistan's tactical nukes:
Q. Does the prospect of a flare up between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, after the Uri attack worry you?
A. Yes, that is potentially a dangerous situation. However, a Pakistani decision to use nuclear weapons in response to an Indian incursion is not automatic but ould very much depend on the magnitude of the Indian incursion.
Q. When exactly do you think Pakistan could put to use its tactical nuclear weapons?
A. Smaller operations would be very unlikely to trigger nuclear use but would certainly trigger conventional responses. And once a conventional confrontation breaks out and more forces are thrown into the battle, then it would potentially escalate to nuclear weapons use if Pakistan concluded that it couldn't push back the Indian attack.
Q. What about the effectiveness of these weapons for Pakistan?
A. As for the effectiveness, nuclear weapons could no doubt create significant problems for an attacking force. But it very much depends on how the attack is structured. Indian forces would have to attack in fairly concentrated formations for nuclear weapons to be useful. And a nuclear counter attack could actually end up requiring a large number of warheads. When the US examined potential use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq it concluded that it would not be a limited matter but require a significant number of weapons.
Q. What can Indian forces do to limit the damage from a low-yield nuclear weapon?
A. If the Indian forces were not coming in a heavily concentrated form but more dispersed and from different directions, then it would be much more complicated to counter them.Q. Could Pakistan itself not suffer from the radioactive fallout of its own tactical nuclear weapon?
A. The radioactive fallout from the weapons would be indiscriminate; it would fall wherever the wind blows. So if the Indian forces were attacking with the wind in their back, the radioactive fallout would drift across Pakistan, not India.

Q. In these circumstances, can India afford to use the military option against Pakistan?
A. Because of these risks, it would be reckless and highly risky for India to strike into Pakistan in revenge for the terrorist attacks. It would carry with it consequences that would far exceed the damage caused by the terrorist attacks. Sound strategy - especially nuclear strategy - requires cool heads, not hasty reactive military spasms that end up creating far more damage than the initial attack.

darshhan wrote:The best way to understand nuclear weapons effects is to conduct Practicals directly.
Trust me more people will survive a nuclear explosion than reading 650 page technical ebook. US DOD can shove it up their @**

Philip wrote:SU-34s a better bird for delivering tactical nukes than the Raffy by air.Our land forces should also be equipped with mobile SSMs with N-capable warheads.That will put the fear of obliteration into Paki pants.

RoyG wrote:

Philip wrote:SU-34s a better bird for delivering tactical nukes than the Raffy by air.Our land forces should also be equipped with mobile SSMs with N-capable warheads.That will put the fear of obliteration into Paki pants.

Su-34 better for tactical nukes? Where did you get this from?