Pakistan need only pop 1-2 Indian cities to cause mass civilian panic and spontaneous evacuation of most of India's other cities, which would utterly collapse India's war effort. Sure the Indians could do it back, but they're on the strategic offensive so mutual collapse would be their defeat. The status quo favors Pakistan.
Yes, but who has more Oracle programmers?
Thus in a nuclear conflagration India would suffer great loss to some of its major cities, but it would survive, albeit wounded.
Pakistan on the other hand would be COMPLETELY destroyed. Destroyed as in nuclear wasteland. Hence the only thing Pakistan would accomplish by engaging India through nukes is killing a few million indians (note India has a population of around a billion....it is second to china). However India would still have the capability to strike back at Pakistan, destroying it completely in the process.
This article claims;
"India is believed to have about 60 nuclear warheads compared with Pakistan’s 25."
From; Nuclear War Threat Over Kashmir Crisis
The Times (UK)
| 5-22-2002 | Richard Beeston
hi there.pak may have twice as many nukes[80-100] as opposed to india’s[40-50].but have u ever seen the globe in your life.40-50 is more than sufficient to blow up pak not once but twice.but 80-100 aint gonna do similar damage to india.naturally there would be a huge loss of life.but it simply wouldnt be as much damage as pak would have to face.BTW indian nukes range between 0.5-4 mega tons.the ones pakis have got range between 50-200 kilo tons.india nukes are simply more powerfull.
India would immediadetly use agni 5 which has a capablity of destroying 2 islamabads thus causing pak to surrender also india has 98 nukes while pak has only 86. india can deploy upto 30 nukes in aan hour compared to paks 26 nukes in an hour also india has more fission material than pak
Hey, I am very glad to inform you that India has 96 warheads, which is much more than Pakistan’s 44 warheads. If you don’t believe me, search it in Google!!!!