Stalin Math on the sub-Continent

Seeker · June 1, 2002, 17:41

-India has a population of over 950 millions.

-A nuclear strike might cost them 5-15 million, but they might be able to put a 'friendly government' in place and eliminate the threat of Pakistan forever.

-India loses millions per year anyway to disease, malnutrition, natural causes. War might only cause a small bump in their natural population growth.

-Pakistan only has 'Hiroshima' type bombs. Contrary to talk about fallout dangers, radiation being blown by the wind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both quickly rebuilt and populous within less than a decade, cancer and radiation poisoning was only significant at the bomb site, and even in those places it was relatively minor, and in terms of total population insignificant.

-The fallout fears are from much much more powerful Soviet hydrogen 'dirty' bombs, Pakistan is far away from such advances. Such bombs might indeed make a 'death cloud' in numbers, but info from Bikini, other tests seems to indicate that a nearby population would not be decimated by fallout from a small number of nukes. There would be many casualties, a great increase in cancer rates, etc, but the population as a whole would only be somewhat impacted.

So:
Are India's nationalist parties and ministers making a 'Stalin equation' (i.e. in World War 2, Stalin knew that USSR with 300 million could lose 20 million with much overall impact) in their conflict with Pakistan?

KrazyHorse · June 1, 2002, 17:43

Quote:

USSR with 300 million

USSR didn't have 300 million people in it during WWII. Maybe 150-200 million (maybe less).

H Tower · June 1, 2002, 17:45

what about the fallout of indian nukes being blown back over india?

Imran Siddiqui · June 1, 2002, 17:54

Exactly... Any bomb that hits Pakistan will have fallout go over India because of how the winds blow.

Az · June 1, 2002, 17:54

They could build huge fans to build air the other way.

USSR had around 150 million people , I think. with around 25 million dead, it had every 7th citizen dead.

Urban Ranger · June 2, 2002, 01:59

If I were an Indian citizen, by now I'd up in arms rioting in the streets, demanding the current government to immediately step down.

notyoueither · June 2, 2002, 02:15

The possibility that the Indian government would never dismiss such equations should not be discounted.

AAMOF, the Pakistanis should not forget it. The region might be more stable.

Frankychan · June 2, 2002, 03:05

I don't know about you, but my grandfather on my mother's side was from Hiroshima.

He died when I was 10 from cancer. If you think that this is "minor".....well....I'd probably get banned for what I could say.

notyoueither · June 2, 2002, 03:52

Who said minor? Nuclear weapons are never 'minor'.

Sarxis · June 2, 2002, 05:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
-India has a population of over 950 millions.

-A nuclear strike might cost them 5-15 million, but they might be able to put a 'friendly government' in place and eliminate the threat of Pakistan forever.

-India loses millions per year anyway to disease, malnutrition, natural causes. War might only cause a small bump in their natural population growth.

Exactly. In a land where human life is cheap, there is no concern for the loss of civilian life.

But they don't want to lose their military bases, which is probably where most of the nukes are aimed at.

Frankychan · June 2, 2002, 06:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker

-Pakistan only has 'Hiroshima' type bombs. Contrary to talk about fallout dangers, radiation being blown by the wind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both quickly rebuilt and populous within less than a decade, cancer and radiation poisoning was only significant at the bomb site, and even in those places it was relatively MINOR, and in terms of total population insignificant.

Right there.

and yes, I do think the Indian's are using numerical superiority.

Sprayber · June 2, 2002, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by frankychan

Right there.

and yes, I do think the Indian's are using numerical superiority.

Franky: to be fair I believe Seeker was simply discussing how the Indians may be thinking about the prospects of war. One of their military officers supposedly stated that India was prepared to take 10-20 million deaths if it meant that they would win any war. I don't think Seeker himself was advocating that line of thought.

I wonder what the reaction of the rest of the world would be to India and Pakistan if they do engage in nuclear war regardless of its size and impact. Which ever one comes out the winner would most likely need massive aid to rebuild and I really doubt that many countries would be too generous to them while those in the ruling goverment remained. Esepecially countries like Australia who will potentially be affected by such a war. Besides, as it stands either country isn't exactly doing so well in terms of wealth as it is. I guess unlike developed nations, they don't have a whole lot to loss. At least maybe in their eyes.

Urban Ranger · June 2, 2002, 09:42

Somebody should inform the Indians about now on how much their government value their lives.

Mercator · June 2, 2002, 10:42

And it's not only just population, but more importantly surface... Even if Pakistan and India were on par with everything else, Pakistan would still lose, simply because they'd need more nukes to cover all of India...
Of course, this is all purely strategical, rational thought, and I'm not for any nuclear war in any way etc.
But I doubt the governments will take personal tragedies etc. really into account.

Seeker · June 2, 2002, 10:49

Think of the Gulf War frankychan.

Many American soldiers died, in tragic ways. Their deaths were, of course, not 'minor' to them or their families.

But in terms of the whole Allied force in Desert Storm of over 100 000, the loss of a few hundred is statistically insignificant.

Now think on a larger, national scale:
Japan with a population of some 60-75 millions.

"It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000" (this after a year and includes the initial blasts)

Obviously a national tragedy, and the cause of many personal tragedies.

But in terms of total national population...?

And about the fallout from their own bombs...it is Pakistan whose strategic position would force them to use a-bombs. India can win in a conventional way and claim some flimsy moral superiority if they do.

And, if they were really fanatical and brutal, they could just 'eat' the fallout, I don't think it would have much of an effect on the 'big picture'.

Oh, and obviously I'm not advocating this! I'm just drawing your attention to the way a hypothetical Indian strategist might be thinking. This was not an issue in the Cold War because of the threat of Nuclear Winter, which meant that the majority of the population would die regardless.

Frankychan · June 2, 2002, 22:56

my bad guys,

I misinterpreted the meaning of 'minor'. I thought that you meant the meaning in the terms of: "the suffering that the Nukes caused" was minor, not "in terms of LIVES LOST to population".

once again, sorry that I misinterpreted your meaning!

No hard feelings guys?

Urban Ranger · June 2, 2002, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercator
And it's not only just population, but more importantly surface... Even if Pakistan and India were on par with everything else, Pakistan would still lose, simply because they'd need more nukes to cover all of India...

There isn't going to be a winner in a nuclear war. Both countries have enough warheads to completely destroy the other side, if not entirely, then economically. Pakistan has mid-range missiles that cover all of India.

Any side that hits the other's cities with nuclear weapons will be hunted down as war criminals by the rest of the world, which will be justifiably upset over this heinous act.

So if the Indian government thinks that they can survive due to sheer numbers, they'd wrong.

Sikander · June 3, 2002, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If I were an Indian citizen, by now I'd up in arms rioting in the streets, demanding the current government to immediately step down.

You should be taking care of business in the same way closer to home.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:48

I'm beginning to feel like the accounts UR is receiving of the conflict aren't rooted in reality. The Pakistanis aren't exactly the innocent victims...

Sikander · June 3, 2002, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by frankychan
I don't know about you, but my grandfather on my mother's side was from Hiroshima.

He died when I was 10 from cancer. If you think that this is "minor".....well....I'd probably get banned for what I could say.

He said relatively minor. More civilians were killed in conventional fighting on Okinawa than in either of the nuclear blasts, and they weren't even targeted as they were during the B-29 raids, several of which also killed more people than the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan lost millions of people during WWII, and a small percentage of those people were killed by nuclear weapons. IMO the A bomb saved Japanese lives as well as allied.

Of course for your family the loss of your grandfather was a tradegy. But who can say that he would have survived a protracted war to have your mother in the absence of the A bomb. Starvation killed a lot of people after the war was over, imagine how devestating it would have been if the blockade had continued for another year or more.

Mr. President · June 3, 2002, 01:02

I think it was David Eddings who wrote (through one of his barely-developed novel characters) "Thy force should outnumber thine opponents by a third to be certain of victory".

It's horrible but it's true. Well, mostly true. India's army is around twice the size of Pakistan's, but they've failed to conclusively win any of the wars to date. Nuclear weapons are probably looking better and better to their high command, as an option to eliminate lots of enemy troops and equipment at once without the face-to-face fighting that they can't seem to get right.

As for Pakistan, the numbers might lean them towards nuclear exchange. The same consideration remains, that high-explosive weapons like hydrogen bombs or, on a smaller scale, daisy-cutters and those fifteen-ton bombs they dropped in Afghanistan, remove a large amount of enemy materiel quickly. Since they are severely lacking in numbers, nukes may constitute a way for them to even out the spread.

Notwithstanding the fact that neither country would survive a nuclear exchange (which would be compounded by the fact that neither has developed more sophisticated nuclear weapons like depleted uranium or neutron bombs), of course.

Sprayber · June 3, 2002, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm beginning to feel like the accounts UR is receiving of the conflict aren't rooted in reality. The Pakistanis aren't exactly the innocent victims...

Neither side is enduring themsleves to sanity but what has made the Indians so mad? The attack on Parliment? There has been violence in Kashmire for decades. Is it only when they attack the Indians directly do they take notice? I'm not trying to justify the acts of the terrorists at all. I'm just wondering why the Indians are willing to risk nuclear war over something that has been going on for decades.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 02:32

They'd both be willing to risk nuclear war just to get their rocks off at each other.

Musharraf was the one who indicated that he'd be willing to go nuclear even if the Indians didn't you know...

Sprayber · June 3, 2002, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They'd both be willing to risk nuclear war just to get their rocks off at each other.

Musharraf was the one who indicated that he'd be willing to go nuclear even if the Indians didn't you know...

And that goes back to me saying that both sides are insane. Indians officials stated that 15-20 million deaths would be an acceptable loss.

edit: Insane isn't the right word. They just dont give a damn.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 02:46

On this one I'm just a bystander. I'd generally side with India (more democratic, less militaristic overall, more leftist), but in Kashmir they play the role of a foreign oppressor fairly well.

LaRusso · June 3, 2002, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
Are India's nationalist parties and ministers making a 'Stalin equation' (i.e. in World War 2, Stalin knew that USSR with 300 million could lose 20 million with much overall impact) in their conflict with Pakistan?

\

Was that in some of the DC Marvel editions or you saw it in one of Hollywood blockbusters?

Sprayber · June 3, 2002, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
\

Was that in some of the DC Marvel editions or you saw it in one of Hollywood blockbusters?

He may have gotten it here off this one.

Its the first in a series.

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/l...ler01.gif.html

LaRusso · June 3, 2002, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

He may have gotten it here off this one.

Its the first in a series.

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/l...ler01.gif.html

wow

Sprayber · June 3, 2002, 11:14

everyone has thought about what would happen if Stalin and Hitler used their magic against each other.

Sprayber · June 3, 2002, 11:18

do you see the similarities between Stalin and luke skywalker? can you guess who yoda is?

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/l...ler03.gif.html