CAN WE KNOCK OUT INDIA'S AND PAKISTAN'S NUKES?

the news of the day ^ | 5-30-02 | dfu

[doug from upland]

It seems that India and Pakistan are heading into something that will change the world forever and cause unthinkable damage and loss of life.

Does anyone have some expertise to be able to tell us whether it is possible for us to destroy the nuclear capability of both nations? I would suspect that, if we tried it, the action may well cause them to launch anyway. Let's have some input.

[doug from upland]

PS -- for those who want to be disruptive a-hoes, please go somewhere else tonight and play.

[Nogbad]

The answer certainly is no.

The only possible tactic would be
an open declaration by the US
that it will support
by all necessary means
the side that receives the first nuclear strike.

[Tennessee_Bob]

Doug -
I see a couple actions. Simultaneous airstrikes against both sides launch sites, with warning from us at the time of the strikes so one won't think it's the other. But then you run into a couple problems - suppose they've dispersed from the known sites - or they've got additional weapons in storage somewhere we don't know about? Then you've also got to deal with the contamination from broken weapons.

Special forces are a possibility, but again, you run into the some of the same problems as above.

Problem is, both sides are on hair-triggers right now, and an attempt to disable both sides capabilities could be all it takes to pull that trigger. They're poised to wipe out several million people, and they've gone beyond listening to common sense, or listening to allies or anyone else. They're caught up in rattling their sabers and beating their drums and it's deafened them to anything else.

At this point, about the only thing that will get rid of their weapons stockpiles will be them throwing the weapons at each other.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I don't have a lot of expertise in the field, but I can venture an opinion, FWIW. Could we knock out their nukes? Difficult to do without either a very intensive "special forces" operation, or some sort of pre-emptive attack. Either way, you're talking about a whole lot of angry people when it's all over.

The bottom line is that I don't see any easy way out of this. The only thing we can do is to apply as much political pressure as we can think of to apply, and to see if we can get Russia and China to assist in any diplomatic manuevering. No matter what strategy any of the great players might be pursuing at the moment, it's hard to imagine anyone really benefiting from an atomic exchange.

The bad news is that if the information I'm getting about how Pakistan has their nukes deployed is correct, then they are going to have some pretty junior officers deciding whether or not to launch their atomic missiles. Not a comforting thought. Sleep tight.

[John W]

When these two almost went to nuke city a few months back,I suggested on FR that a "limited"-or not "limited" for all I care-exchange between these two,that doesn't result in the sky falling ,the earth's poles reversing,the oceans flashing to steam,ect.,ect,would do wonders for US.

We are the top nuclear power,and proof that the use of nuclear weapons will not end all life on earth as we know it would be a good thing.

[Golden Eagle]

Wish we could but it would be almost impossible, especially trying to attack both at once. We'll have to choose a side if a war breaks out, logical choice is India since "the terrorists" are seemingly in Pakistan. Musharraff sure is barking loud considering what all he's staring at. I mean how many people are in India, plus if he ended up having the U.S. bombing him on his other border he's gonna get wiped out. He better start concentrating on sorting out things on his own side of the fence, his comments about blitzing out or whatever he said was ridiculous.

[paul51]

In this area of the world, it seems people are prone to behave like barbarians and they have little respect for human life. It seems very likely they will start tossing nukes at each other.

If that's the case, rather than wasting more time and resources always trying to sort these maniacs out, we should take advantage of the situation any way we can to help ourselves. IE, fire of a few of our own weapons at the tribal areas of Pak to vaporize some terrorist remnants.

[swarthyguy]

Guesstimate: US forces in Pakistan have had ample time to identify and locate physical storage sites which could be secured.

OR USE THIS since chances are, Pakistan fires first, if it does.

The Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL) team successfully completed test-firings of the first flight laser module (LM-1) in March. The firings produced record power levels of 118 percent of the laser's designed power output and exceeded the power requirements of the ABL mission. The ABL system will use six such laser modules to create a megawatt-class chemical laser flying in a specially built Boeing 747-400F to shoot down missiles in the boost phase.

[capitan_refugio]

Doug, you pose an interesting tactical question. However, the answer is probably more on a strategic line. Back in the darkest days of the Cold War, the West and the Eastern Block were kept at bay by "Mutally Assured Destruction." I worry that India's thinking is, "Heck, we'll lose a city or two to get Pakistan out of the way forever." We should make it clear to both sides, that it does not matter who shoots a nuke first, it will be "Assured Mutal Destruction" of both sides, delivered by the Ohio class boats in the Indian Ocean.

[apochromat]

This topic seems out of the scope of a serious public forum. What we can do here, besides wildly guessing wrong, is remove possibilities.

[swarthyguy]

Nothing like a real live field test.

[Mitchell]

If war breaks out between India and Pakistan, the biggest uncertainty is what China would do. I can imagine the great powers taking sides, one at a time, because they feel they must. From terrorist action, to war, to world war -- just like in 1914. I hope that we've learned something from World War I and that the world's leaders will choose not to follow the same pattern once again.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Very, very doubtful. But I don't think either side will push the other far enough to bring on nukes. Remember, we fought a Cold War over several generations without firing a nuke, with heavy combat in Korea and Vietnam. So it is certainly possible that India and Pak could fight a limited skirmish in Kashmir and not resort to nukes.

Here's my fear: India goes for the throat or Pak collapses so badly(economy, govt, etc.) that they exchange nukes. Pak's are likely dispersed and under a decentralized command should its govt fall, so in the retaliation a radical general sympathetic to the Al Queada types decides practically all is lost and to go out in a blaze of glory. Fires a nuke at US forces in the region. We've now been sucked into war by a suicide bomber(on a nation scale) and have to retaliate in some manner. Meanwhile that strike triggers cells in the US, the next wave goes off with major economic disruption(to me the biggest impact of the sum of all fears would be the potential for a form of economic collapse, even if just for a restructuring). All this enboldens uprisings in some 'moderate' Arab countries, perhaps another Fall of the Shah situation, and the radicals decide to go after Israel while we are preoccupied. Dominoes delivered. Not to mention the possibility of the wildcard(which is my hunch why we are not rushing into Iraq just yet, we aren't prepared for the consequences yet).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Naw, China would sit it out. Why would they want to take any casualties, when others are preoccupying and weakening the US? And I don't think they are ready yet to go after Taiwan. So they'd sit back and enjoy the show, watching others do their dirty work.

[Nogbad]

Here is my nightmare scenario:

A nuclear exchange followed by total chaos
during which a renegade general hands over some of the left-over 'nukes'
to Al Qaeda.

Use of nuclear weapons in South Asia would lead
to very dark uncharted waters
and the effects would not be confined
to that region only

[Mitchell]

Naw, China would sit it out. Why would they want to take any casualties, when others are preoccupying and weakening the US? And I don't think they are ready yet to go after Taiwan. So they'd sit back and enjoy the show, watching others do their dirty work.

I agree that this is their intended plan -- let the West and the Muslim world fight it out; they'll just watch their two main enemies weaken one another. Maybe they'll take some actions in secret, but nothing in the open. But that could change, given sufficient provocation of the sort that would change the world's balance of power (Indian domination of the subcontinent, perhaps, or this thread's hypothetical U.S. attack on both India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons).

[Mitchell]

Or maybe not even a renegade general. Just a Pakistani general.

[Arkinsaw]

No need to take them both out. India has a "no first use" policy and are likely to abide by it. India's military is pretty much under the control of the democratically elected civilian political leaders.

None of that is true for the other side. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with an increasingly "Islamicized" military. They have not pledged "no first use" and are indeed likely to respond to a conventional attack with their nuclear weapons. They are also allowing/sending/aiding terrorist infiltration of India which is provoking the crisis in the first place.

No need to go blasting away at both of them. Just pick one.

[mikeIII]

No need to go blasting away at both of them. Just pick one.

Yes, to some extent, the "escalation" is because we haven't picked a side yet!

[doosee]

Naw, China would sit it out

The only reason the Pakis have nuclear is the Chinese. India is on the list for China, they will make sure INdia doesn't get the upper hand. Another result of Slick Willie and Algore tapping the Chinese ATM