Skip to comments.
Indian nuke arsenal dwarfs Pakistan's : Jane's
The Times of India ^
| FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2002 4:25:50 AM
| AFP
Posted on 05/30/2002 7:34:52 PM PDT by AM2000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
05/30/2002 7:34:54 PM PDT
by
AM2000
To: Sawdring;Dog Gone;mikeIII;swarthyguy;aristeides;OrthodoxPresbyterian;keri;Aaron_A;abwehr...
ping
2
posted on
05/30/2002 7:36:06 PM PDT
by
AM2000
To: AM2000
"A nuclear strike by either country could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown over the attacking country." If they're willing to use nukes, then worry over fallout isn't going to cocern them too much. It's better than being at ground zero.
3
posted on
05/30/2002 7:40:18 PM PDT
by
Brett66
To: AM2000
Sheesh, it only takes one.
4
posted on
05/30/2002 7:42:43 PM PDT
by
Ciexyz
To: AM2000;Dark Wing
Jane's statement here is such a bunch of hooey that it makes the whole article suspect:
"A nuclear strike by either country could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown over the attacking country."
City-busters are always airbursts to maximize the blast wave and thermal pulse, and airbursts don't produce short-term fallout.
I wonder if this is disinformation, sloppy journalism or the usual lefty propgaganda.
5
posted on
05/30/2002 7:45:42 PM PDT
by
Thud
To: Thud
These are baby nukes in any event. I don't want to minimize the damage or casualties, which would be high, but in the city where I live, you could drop 10 of those pups downtown, and here in the suburbs I'd be fine.
6
posted on
05/30/2002 8:14:20 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: Brett66
If the Third Indo-Paki War starts and goes atomic, I expect each side to use two A-bombs. At that point each side will recoil and ask for a suspension of hostilities. After prolonged negotiations, the war government of each will be replaced by a peace government and a truce will be signed. The side that went atomic first will have to pay some reparations.
The horror may have a benefit. The Iranians and the Arab states with A-bombs may see the non-benefit of this type of war and stick with the sponsorship of terror groups, rather than trying atomics.
7
posted on
05/30/2002 8:18:30 PM PDT
by
RicocheT
To: AM2000
150 to 50 nukes
What the hell does it matter
There ain't no winners
8
posted on
05/30/2002 8:22:58 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: Thud
City-busters are always airbursts to maximize the blast wave and thermal pulse, and airbursts don't produce short-term fallout. All nukes, no matter where detonated, produce "short-term fallout" (as well as long term).
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes were air bursts, and there was plenty of lethal fallout from them.
Air bursts don't produce as much as ground bursts, it's true, but there's still enough to kill many, many people.
9
posted on
05/30/2002 8:28:02 PM PDT
by
Dan Day
To: AM2000
I remember when I was a kid in the 50's and there were above ground Nuke tests in the US? and Russia?, maybe, there was some concern about the safety the milk we were drinking, due to radiatioactive particles being carried in the atmosphere and then setlling in the US where cows ate grass crops that those particles settled on.
Other than the obvious geopolitical concerns if India and Pakistan start lobbing a few nukes at each other, do any FReepers have an idea of the possible radioactive fallout effects on US citizens, livestock, food crops, etc?
To: BansheeBill
11
posted on
05/30/2002 8:44:05 PM PDT
by
AM2000
To: AM2000
Thanks for pointing me to that thread. A lot of my questions were answered in a link someone posted there:
LINK
To: Dan Day
Airbursts don't produce short-term fallout, i.e., that which precipitates out in two days or less, unless they are of such low yield that their fission by-products lack enough energy to be a significant hazard.
13
posted on
05/30/2002 9:04:23 PM PDT
by
Thud
To: *southasia_list
To: Thud
Janes is usually pretty reliable, and they are definaltey not the usual left crap. There pretty much to the point, and considering how many former military personal work for them, its not likely they are over run by liberals.
15
posted on
05/30/2002 9:18:15 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
To: BansheeBill
I'm not sure, but I think its pretty safe to say, thinking weather wise and stuff. Its can't be good for americans. I'd bet that you'd probably see a cancer boom in california and along the west coast.
16
posted on
05/30/2002 9:19:50 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
To: Thud
The FYEO Military newsletter had a much better article on this after the rival Indian/Pakistani nuclear tests.
It looks like Janes has 'Gone European,' AKA Politically Correct, on nuclear issues.
To: AM2000
devastating death tolls Only part of the story.
Just as many will need medical attention, which will be in short supply. At the same time just as many again will need other things such as food. The entire country will have to mobilize just to deal with that, and it won't be over in a week or a year. Any country that takes even 3 hits on pop centers will be out of commission for a long time. 50 or 150 such hits would ruin the country for decades or longer. The immediate death toll is only the beginning, the tip of the ice-berg.
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson