India threatens war - Page 3

Imran Siddiqui · May 23, 2002, 11:22

Quote:

Most of the tribes went caput when the kingdom of Israel had fallen.
The only tribe left, in significant numbers, was Yehuda, Jehuda, Jews.

Natan disagrees with you. And I'm more apt to believe him

.

Quote:

India's natural state is to be partitioned. A unified subcontinent is much more the exception than the rule. Even being in only three parts (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) is anomalous--it's usually been more like a dozen. There's a ton of distinct langauges, cultures and ethnic groups, with differences greater than those in the EU.

Ah, he speaks the truth. The subcontinent has a variety of cultures of its own. No pahs from me

.

lightblue · May 23, 2002, 11:45

Musharraf has said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons if it is under serious threat. India has says that they will only use their nuclear capability in retaliation...

Lightblue's odds on nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent by the end of the year: 12-1
By the end of the decade: 3-1
Odds on general war without nuclear exchange this year: 2-1

Ecthy · May 23, 2002, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
kaput

kaputt

chequita guevara · May 23, 2002, 13:33

I think war is likely within the week. Given India's numerical superiority, it might be that Pakistan will nuke Indian troops. However, according to those on this thread, India would only have superiority in a small operation. If a general war broke out, Pakistan would have the advantage, so rather than escalating to nukes, they may escalate to an full scale war, at which point India might feel the need to nuke Pakistan.

Ecthy · May 23, 2002, 13:34

The question is: will they only nuke when their cities are in danger or also when their troops are inferior at some point? Civ or EU?

Az · May 23, 2002, 13:41

I tend to think that if war breaks out , it will be pakistan who'll need the nukes first.

Saint Marcus · May 23, 2002, 14:09

bye bye Delhi

how many people live there? 10-20 million?

Ecthy · May 23, 2002, 14:10

are you certain they'd nuke a capital city at once?

Lonestar · May 23, 2002, 14:14

Well, they might go after Bombay

chequita guevara · May 23, 2002, 14:14

There's no reason to assume they'd go after each other's cities at first.

Defiant · May 23, 2002, 14:14

Does either India or Pakistan have the capability of launching nukes or do they have to drop them? And if they do have launch vehicles, how far can they launch their nukes?

Lonestar · May 23, 2002, 14:20

Heard on the Radio today that the Indians set their carrier to sea yesterday, and began moving ships from their "Eastern" squadron to their Western Squadron.

INS Viraat

Az · May 23, 2002, 14:26

good point. I think they have 1000km ranged missiles, IIRC from newspaper reports. this will render new-delhi and bombay out of range, again, IIRC. but Karachi , the biggest pakistani city , is not safe , due to the superiority of the Indian Navy. they have a goddamn carrier.

Lonestar · May 23, 2002, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti
good point. I think they have 1000km ranged missiles, IIRC from newspaper reports. this will render new-delhi and bombay out of range, again, IIRC. but Karachi , the biggest pakistani city , is not safe , due to the superiority of the Indian Navy. they have a goddamn carrier.

Well, you gotta remeber, the damn thing is nearly 60 yrs old, and only has Harriers and Helicopters.

Although, India will supposebly be accepting the transfer of the Old soviet Admiral Gorshkov next year, after they fix it up a bit.

Andrew1999 · May 23, 2002, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Does either India or Pakistan have the capability of launching nukes or do they have to drop them? And if they do have launch vehicles, how far can they launch their nukes?

They both have missiles for their nukes. India's can reach pretty much anywhere in Pakistan, but Pakistan's are much more limited. I think they'd get much more range dropping them off airplanes, but most of the news reports center on missiles, so maybe they're not considering bombers. A bomber would be much more vulnerable, of course.

Az · May 23, 2002, 14:31

looks like those brit carriers. I assume it's the same model.

funny I was under the impression they had a soviet one.

Defiant · May 23, 2002, 14:43

Another question is how powerful are their warheads as in comparison to Hiroshima or Nakasaki?

Az · May 23, 2002, 14:46

The Admiral Gorshkov? let me check up with my dad. ok , he's not sure , but most chances are it's a Varyag . They're good, and carry SU-27s , IIRC , but I wonder in what condition is it.

Ned · May 23, 2002, 14:47

If war erupts, this will be the best test of whether MAD is a viable doctrine for the future. I know the Europeans and the Americans do not agree on whether reliance on MAD is sufficient.

chequita guevara · May 23, 2002, 14:54

Well, do Pakistan and India have enough weapons to destroy each other? Nope. Then MAD doesn't apply.

Defiant · May 23, 2002, 14:59

Also, if the USA can ever get that damn Missile Defense Shield working correctly it will take away from MAD (in the eyes of Europe and US), but both India and Pakistan are even close to that kind of technology.

Az · May 23, 2002, 15:02

well, as all the leadership will surely die , I don't think they're crazy enough . Musharraf is not religious, so he'll probably not go for it.

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 15:03

Ok, Che has a point... how about MATHC (mutually assured three-headed children)? It's still a test of whether having nukes deters the use of nukes against you.

-Arrian

Defiant · May 23, 2002, 15:09

That is true, but also the question has to lay WHO is willing to use these, if they are super fundalmentalists who don't give a **** about their own lives then the idea of nukes deterring nukes would become pointless. That would our worse case scenario.

faded glory · May 23, 2002, 15:26

Just an Update. India moved somthing like 400 armored vehicles to Khasmir. Indian aircraft are flying over there side. Pakistan does the same. Both sides seem to be talking about peace. But India says it must react. Khasmir militants vow more attacks on Indian soldiers and there families. Musharref promises to crackdown, India doubts it.

wholly crap, an aircraft carrier. God thats a small one, crowded too. Pakistan has a few American made destroyers. Also Pakistan has a few hundred F-16's I believe.

Az · May 23, 2002, 15:38

I think this will be a nice test on how armies with equal troop quality will fight , with Pakistan using mostly Western technology, while India is armed with Russian tanks and planes.

Sandman · May 23, 2002, 15:39

You can bet that the West is rubbing it's fingers greedily at the prospect of a massive new market for weapons.

faded glory · May 23, 2002, 15:44

Dalgetti, havent we tried that already? I mean, you kick the arabs ass every war. We killed the Iraqi's.....etc. I think we proved western equipment is better.

Pakistan is a bit outdated. Using Patton tanks and some Chinese ones. It would be a good match. But Pakistan is outnumbered somthing like 3 to 1.

Defiant · May 23, 2002, 15:45

Sandman,
I think you are right, alot like the Iran-Iraq war, the US arms one side and the Russians the other and the only ones gaining anything in that war was the US and Russia from arms sales.

faded glory · May 23, 2002, 15:49

We didnt arm anybody in Iran-Iraq? I dont think. We did give some money to Iraq, but not enough really to do very much, except say buy a dozen airplanes. The Russians sold 60 billion worth of equipment to Baghdad.